E449 
.R49 




:^:^; 



0^ .-', -^c 



^ :'iSfe \s^^ /Sltev 







'fm-. 



^^m^ 



^ > ^V,Kr- 



v^' 



v^' 



^O 



V ^'% ^!'<^^ ^' 



^y :.f^ 



'i^& 



-7- 



■^-^i 







°^v, 



m- 



o 



^oV^ 



* .,>^ 









* 



^» 



'/T?^-^ , 






A"' 






^^^ 



.^' 



^' 



^:t:t^^ a 







LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 



DELIVERED IN THE 



FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CINCINNATI, 

JULY FIRST AND THIRD, 1845. 



BY REV. N. L. RICE, D. D. 

PASTOR OP THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CIN,, OHIO. 



" CINCINNATI: 
PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES. 

18 45. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, 

BY N. L. RICE, 

In the Clerk's office for the District Court of Ohio. 






PREFACE. 



It was my purpose, when the following discourses were 
delivered, to publish them. The importance of doing so, is 
the more evident from the very gross misrepresentations of 
them by the editors of the Abolitionist papers of this city. 
From those gentlemen, I regret to be obliged to say, I ex- 
pect nothing like fairness or candor in their representations 
of my views of slavery. I deem it proper, therefore, to 
give them to the public, that candid men may judge for 
themselves both of the positions taken, and of the argu- 
ments by which they are sustained. 

I have added some documents and facts which time did 
not permit me to introduce whilst delivering the discour- 
ses, and have condensed the whole in as small space as pos- 
sible. I have the satisfaction to know, that several previ- 
ously inclined to Abolitionism were fully satisfied of the 
correctness of the views presented. If they should be the 
means of correcting misrepresentations of an injurious 
character, and of satisfying inquiring minds, I shall not 
have labored in vain. N. L. Rice. 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 



I AM perfectly aware, my friends, that many well-mean- 
ing persons are decidedly opposed to the discussion of al- 
most any subject connected with religion, in regard to which 
professing christians hold different views. If we were to 
yield to the opinion of such persons, the extensive field of 
religious investigation must be contracted to extremely nar- 
row limits ; for there are few truths in divine revelation 
which have not been called in question by some who still 
claim the christian name. It may, however, be proper 
that I should state the reasons which have induced me, at 
the present time, to discuss the subject of slavery. They 
are the following : 

1. This subject is now exciting very general interest 
amongst all classes of people in our country, is occasioning 
divisions in the church of Christ, and even threatening the 
destruction of our civil Union. Already it has divided the 
Methodist and Baptist churches ; and it is now agitating to 
the very centre the New School Presbyterian church; 
whilst fanatical Abolitionists are denouncing our civil union 
as most iniquitous and not to be tolerated. At such a time 
it behooves every man to inform himself fully on the whole 
subject, that his influence may be thrown where it should 
be. At such a time it becomes the duty of those who de- 
precate such divisions and agitations, to contribute as they 
can, to the dissemination of correct principles. 

2. Those who refuse to adopt the views of Abolition- 
ists, have been constantly taunted with fearing discussion, 
from a consciousness that their principles cannot bear the 
light. Such charges, accompanied with the boasting of Ab- 
olitionists, that they are prepared to submit their doctrines 
to the closest scrutiny, are calculated to make an impres- 
sion on the minds of many. We owe it to ourselves, there- 
fore, and to the truth, to show the public, that we are pre- 
pared to meet them, and to demonstrate the correctness of 
our principles. 

J* 5, 



6 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

3. The action of the late General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church on the subject of slavery, has been most 
grossly misrepresented ; and continued efforts have been 
made to heap odium upon that body. The report which, 
with the most delightful unanimity they adopted, has been 
represented as a decidedly pro-slavery document, and our 
church reproached as ^Hhe slave church of Jlmerica.'^ 
However imbecile these efforts to injure our church will prove 
to be, many may be misled by the false representations so 
industriously circulated, if they should not be exposed. 

To show the audience the character and spirit of the 
publications to which I have referred, I will read a few ex- 
tracts from letters written by Professor Stowe, of Lane 
Seminary, to the Boston Recorder and New York Evan- 
gelist, and from the IVatQhman of the Valley, the New 
School Aboiitioaist paper of this city. Professor Stowe, 
anticipating great agitation in our Assembly on the subject 
of slavery, wrote as follows : " The Old School Assembly, 
which meets here in May, will have musket-fire and gun- 
powder on the subject of slavery; for the elements are al- 
ready boiling like a witch's cauldron. After the excite- 
ment of 1838, Rev. Dr. Baxter went home to Virginia, and 
told the students of Prince Edward Seminary, what a grand 
thing had been done, for they had got rid of the New 
School and the Abolitionists at the same time. "Ah ! luck- 
less speech and bootless boast," as Cowper says. The Old 
School will yet be shaken to its very centre by this same 
question of slavery, (and perhaps the New also)" &;c. 

Such were the predictions of the Professor ; but the re- 
sult sadly disappointed him. There was no " musket-fire 
and gun-powder on the subject of slavery." Whereupon, 
he again wrote in the following strain : " The action on 
slavery astonished every one, ancl it was carried through 
with very little opposition, only 12 out of 170 members vo- 
ting against it. It confirms what I told you in my last let- 
ter, respecting the imconscientiousness of such bodies. 
Even unscrupulous politicians expressed their astonishment 
at the result." The word "unconscientiousness," I presume, 
is intended as a mild expression for hypocrisy. Concerning 
the letter from the Free Church of Scotland, he thus writes : 

" THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND." 

" A letter and memorial from this church, on the subject 
of slavery, was presented to the Assembly and read. The 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 7 

Scotch Church of course exliort their American brethren to 
take some action on the subject of slavery, to evince their 
disapprobation of the system, in their desire to get rid of it. 
The Assembly reply, by referring their Scotch brethren to 
their present action on the subject, which declines to give 
any disapproval of the system, or make any efforts to re- 
move it. I was not present when the subject was up, but 
was informed by another, that during the reading of the pa- 
pers from Scotland, most of the Southern men left the 
house. On such terms as these, will the Free Church of 
Scodand long hold communion with the slave-church of 
America? for such,,/;«r eminence, is now the Old School 
branch of the Presbyterian church in the United States. 

The following extracts from tlie Watchman of the Valley 
will show the character of the assaults the editor has thought 
proper to make upon the General Assembly : 

" To dispose of such a subject, in such a summary way, 
as if unworthy to occupy the deliberations of the house ; 
and then solennily to propose to return thanks to Almighty 
God, that they had been able, in so short a time, and with 
such wonderlul unanimity, TO SHUT OUT THE CRY 
OF THE POOR from the Assembly, argues an infatuation 
on that subject which reflecting men may well look upon 
with amazement ! "O my soul! come not thou into their 
secret ! Unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou uni- 
ted !" For " instruments, cruelty are in their hands." They 
can settle the fate of groaning millions with as much sang 
froid and despatch, as a Turk would sever the head of a 
'• christian dog" from his body, and then publicly return 
thanks to God that they had done it ! — thanks to God, that 
they had been able so eflMeclually to stop their ears and 
harden their hearts against the groans and importunities of 
the oppressed, as to fear no farther annoyance from that 
source ! 

" Such a decision outrages conscience, humanity and com- 
mon sense, and must ultimately expose its authors to the 
scorn and contempt of mankind — a scorn and contempt 
proportioned in severity to the exalted religious authority 
from which it emanates. For the world, we would not 
stand in that pillory, in which the late Assembly, by its pro- 
slavery document, has placed itself. That act has given to 
this Assembly an unenviable distinction, among all the gen- 
eral ecclesiastical bodies in the United Slates. The Old 



8 lectures on slavery. 

School General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
IN the United States, for the year 1845, STANDS 
SINGLE AND ALONE, in pronouncing American sla- 
very, a justifiable, a righteous, an apostolically authorized 
" relation !" No other Assembly and no other church has 
ever dared to father such a monstrous absurdity.''^ 

By these gentlemen, you perceive, as well as by others 
equally our friends, the Report adopted by the Assembly 
is pronounced a pro-slavery document, a defence of Ameri- 
can slavery, with all the cruelty which wicked men may 
choose to inflict on their slaves ; and our church is stigma- 
tized, as "y;a?' eminence — the slave-church of Jitnerica.^'' 
And yet, in that document, which the reader has probably 
seen, I defy any man to put his linger on one expression which 
advocates slavery as a desirable institution, or looks toward 
the toleration of the slightest cruelty in tlie treatment of 
slaves. There were before the Assembly two important 
questions, viz : 

1. Is the mere fact of holding slaves, without regard to 
circumstances, to be made a bar to christian fellowship ? In 
other words, ought we to exclude from the church all slave- 
holders, regardless of the circumstances in which they are 
placed, and of their kind treatment of their slaves ? 

2. In what way can the church most efiectually amelio- 
rate the condition of the slaves in our country ? 

The first question the Assembly decided in the negative, 
that the mere fact of holding slaACs is not, according to 
the Bible, a sin to be visited with the discipline of the church. 
In regard to the second, they decided, that the condition of 
the slaves cannot be improved by ecclesiastical legislation, 
by making slave-holding a bar to christian-fellowship, nor 
by the bitter denunciations hurled by Abolitionists against 
all slaveholders indiscriminately ; but by preaching to both 
master and slave the glorious Gospel, as did the aposdes of 
Christ ! For these decisions, that body is held up to odium 
as the advocate of slavery — nay, as the apologist for all the 
cruelty which the slave-law allows the master to inflict on 
his slaves, although they distinctly condemned all unkind 
treatment of them ! I will not assert, that these gross mis- 
representations were intentionally made ; and yet I find it 
extremely difficult to see how those who made them, could 
have believed they were stating w^hat is strictly true. How- 
ever this may be, it is clearly our duty to repel and expose 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 9 

such charges. And before I close this discussion, I -will 
prove that they come with a pecuUarly ill grace from those 
who have made them. 

4. My position in relation to this subject makes it pecu- 
liarly proper that I should undertake this duty. Unexpec- 
tedly appointed a commissioner to the General Assembly, 
and still more unexpectedly made chairman of the commit- 
tee on slavery, and consequently assailed as the principal 
author of the Report, it is particularly my duty to expose 
the misrepresentations and repel the assaults of Abolition- 
ists. And as it is well known, that I am in favor of the 
full and fair discussion of all subjects of importance, which 
agitate the public mind, my silence would undoubtedly be 
misconstrued. For these reasons I now enter upon the dis- 
cussion of this agitating subject — premising, that I now 
speak sinply as an individual, and am alone responsible 
for the sentiments I shall express. 

It is particularly important, in this discussion, that the 
precise points at issue should be distinctly understood. For 
in the discussion of no subject which I have had occasion 
to investigate, has error gained a greater advantage by ma- 
king false issues, than of the one now under consideration. 
I will therefore distinctly state the questions at issue, and in 
so doing, shall dispose of at least two-thirds of the argu- 
ments of the Abolitionists. 

1. The question is notj whether it is right to reduce free 
men to a state of slavery. No class of christians, so far 
as I know, in any part of our country, pretend that it is. 
All Presbyterians, all christians, all philanthropists, de- 
nounce the African slave trade as an enormity not to be tol- 
erated. All, consequently, agree that slavery ought never 
to have been introduced into our country. Whetlier it is 
right to force a free man, charged with no crime, into a 
state of slavery, is one question — a question easily answer- 
ed. But what is our duty toward those who have been 
made slaves by others — how far we can immediately re- 
store to them their liberty, must depend upon many cir- 
cumstances. For illustration, it would be very wicked in 
me to reduce a rich man to poverty and want, either by- 
fraud or violence ; but how far I may be able to aid a man 
thus reduced by others, is a very different question — a 
question to be determined by circumstances. The slave- 
holding states have inherited the evil of slavery ; and for 



10 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

this sad inheritance they are indebted in no slight degree, to 
England and to the older free states. And let it not be for- 
gotten, that Presbyterians compose but a very small propor- 
tion of the population of those states. They (the present 
generation) found the Africans in slavery. Many of them, 
almost all, I presume, deplore the existence of slavery 
amongst them. But the question is — what is their duty, 
situated as they are, Avith reference to it? Doubtless the 
spirit of the Gospel requires us to do what we can for the 
present and future happiness of our fellow-men ; but what 
is our duty, under the existing circumstances 1 This is the 
question ; and it may not be so easily answered. 

2. The question between us and the Abolitionists, is not, 
whether there are evils connected with slavery, or whether 
slavery is itself a great evil. This is admhted, I believe, 
by most, if not all, Presbyterians, and by multitudes in the 
slave-holding states, who make no profession of religion. 
I have not a word to say in favor of slavery as a desirable 
institution. I have ever deplored its introduction into our 
country, and would do as much to remove it as any Aboli- 
tionist, so far as it can be removed by the operation of cor- 
rect principles. Multitudes of the most enlightened and in- 
fluential men in our country, as well as in England and 
Scotland, who never will, because they never can, believe 
the doctrine of the Abolitionists, r>or unite with them in 
their agitating measures, are as staunch friends of the slave, 
and as desirous of the removal of the evil of slavery, as 
the most zealous Abolitionist, if not more so. 

War is a dreadful evil ; but it does not follow, that there 
are no christian soldiers, nor that every church member 
who, under any circumstances, becomes a soldier, should 
be exconimunicated. All sober-minded men admit, that 
there is such a thing ?i^ justifiable war. So there may be 
such a thing as justifiable slavery. Yet we have, in our 
country, the non-resistance party^ who would excommuni- 
cate a man for resisting a highway robber, or for defending 
himself against the assaults of a murderer ! They have 
made much greater advances in removing evils, than the Ab- 
olitionists ; for Joshua Leavit, of the Emancipator^ informs 
us, that humane men are thinking seriously of reasoning 
with slave-holders, not with arguments, but with " cold 
steel !" 

Liberty is truly a great blessing ; and yet in the organ- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 11' 

ization of human society, it must be more or less restrained 
according to circumstances. Children must be under pa- 
rental goverment, until mature age ; and yet they often feel 
that their liberty is gready restrained. Some of our mod- 
ern reformers, however, have gone so far as to renounce 
all family government, and leave children to be governed by 
their own inclinations ! Females, in our country, are not 
eligible to civil offices ; nor are they even permitted to vote 
in the election of civil officers ; and yet they are quite as 
deeply interested in the affairs of government, as men are. 
Moreover, Paul and Peter were so tyrannical (so some now 
consider \i) as to forbid women to become public speakers, 
and require them to obey their husbands. But we have 
reformers who have far greater light on this subject, than 
the Apostles had ; and they have formed " the women's 
rights party.'" And now it is by no means uncommon to 
see females, regardless of their proper sphere, and destitute 
of that modesty which is one of the chief ornaments of the 
sex, figuring as orators on the stage, amid the confusion of 
Abolitionist meetings ! Garrison and his party have more 
fully carried out their principles, than their brethren in this 
latitude ; but I see no reason to doubt, that in due time, they 
will follow suit. 

Some nations, it is admitted, are not qualified to sustain 
and enjoy a government so free as ours. Such, for exam- 
ple, is the condition of Mexico and South America. And 
all must admit, that where intelligence and virtue are, to a 
great extent, wanting in any country, a more despotic gov- 
ernment becomes necessary. May it not, then, be fairly 
questioned, whether there is in the slave population of the 
South and West so much virtue and intelligence, as to pre- 
pare them at once to enjoy full liberty, even were it within 
their reach ? May it not be absolutely necessary, for the 
good of both masters and slaves, and of the country gener- 
ally, that emancipation should be, as it has been wherever 
slavery has been abolished in this country, gradual, not im- 
mediate ? It is not difficult to foresee the evils which must 
result from the immediate emancipation of three millions of 
slaves, without intelligence, degraded to a great extent in 
moral character, without property, and without habits of in- 
dustry and economy. 

But admitting, as I most cheerfully do admit, that slavery 
ought everywhere to be abolished just as fast as it can be 



13 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

on scriptural principles, without violence, with safety to all 
parties, the question arises — by what means can the condi- 
tion of the slaves be most effectually ameliorated for the 
present, and the ultimate removal of slavery be most safely 
and expeditiously accomplished ? I oppose modern Aboli- 
tionism, not because it tends to abolish slavery, but because 
its doctrines are false, and, as carried out in practice, tend to 
perpetuate slavery and to aggravate all its evils ! This I 
expect to prove in due time. 

But the Abolitionists, with as little wisdom as truth, de- 
nounce, as pro-slavery men, all who refuse to adopt their 
extravagant views, and to fall in with their agitating meas- 
ures. We are not yet reduced to the alternative of advoca- 
ting slavery as a blessing, or of uniting with them. 'I'wo 
physicians, for example, are called to consult on the case of 
a patient laboring under a disease which has assumed the 
chronic form. One of them insists, contrary to all estab- 
lished principles of medical practice, that he can cure the 
patient by one tremendous dose of strong medicine. The 
other protests, that such a dose will be his death, and refu- 
ses to allow it to be administered. The first Doctor then 
denounces the other as a most cruel man, utterly unwilling 
that the patient shall be cured — anxious indeed that he 
should die — an advocate of disease and death ! Precisely so 
do the Abolitionists. They seem incapable of understand- 
ing the obvious truth, that evils which have long existed, 
and become interwoven with the very texture of society, 
cannot be removed by one spasmodic movement ; and they 
seem wholly to forget, that if slavery is ever to be abolished 
in the slave-holding states, it must be abolished, as it has 
been in the older free states, with the consent of the peo- 
ple, and by the people of those states. 

3. The question between us and the Abohtionists, is not 
whether the laws by which, in the several states, slavery is 
regulated, are just and righteous. Many of them are sadly 
defective, and some are oppressive and unjust in a high de- 
gree. The laws of Rome gave the master complete power 
over the life of his slave. These laws were most unright- 
eous. In some of the Southern states the laws prohibit 
slaves being taught to read. Such laws are most unjust. 
They are an invasion of the rights of conscience. No le- 
gislature has the right to forbid me to teach my family to 
read the word of God. I confess, I would not readily sub- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 18 

mit to such laws ; and I rejoice to learn, that in the South, 
they are to a great extent a dead letter, and are practically 
disregarded. 

But are individual christians to be responsible for all the 
defective or oppressive laws of the civil government under 
which they live ? Or are they to be charged with all the 
cruelty which the civil laws allow to be inflicted upon the 
slaves, whether they in fact inflict it on them or not? The 
law requiring the mail to be carried on the sabbath, we re- 
garded as unjust; and we sought its repeal. But that law 
did not require me to be a post-master or a mail-contractor. 
Consequently, notwithstanding its injustice, I could live in 
all good conscience toward God. 

The laws regulating the conjugal and parental relations, 
are, in many countries, and even in our own, defective or 
oppressive. In Kentucky, for example, divorces have of- 
ten been obtained upon the most flimsy pretexts ; and thus 
men who, according to God's law, were husbands, were 
permitted to marry again. But those laws, however they 
may permit men to treat their wives cruelly, do not compel 
any man to seek a divorce. In Ohio, I venture to assert, 
that men may, without exposing themselves to the penalty 
of the civil law, inflict great injustice and suffering upon 
their wives and children. Indeed no civil enactment can 
entirely protect those who are in the power of wicked men. 
But is every man obliged to do as much wrong as the civil 
law permits him to do in the relations of life ? And is any 
christian to be called before ecclesiastical courts upon the 
presumption, that such is his practice? 

Abolitionists, with singular absurdity, go to the law-books 
for a definition of slavery ; and having ascertained the pow- 
er the civil law gives the master over the slave, they charge 
the slave-holder with all the oppression and cruelty the law 
permits, and denounce every man who refuses to pronounce 
slave-holding in itself a heinous and scandalous sin, as de- 
fending all that cruelty and oppression. For they tell us, 
that all the evils which the civil law permits o be inflicted 
on the slave, are eiisential features of the relation, 

A specimen of this most unbound logic is found in the 
Watchman of the rV/Z/f?/, of June 12th. The editor quotes 
the statutes of South Carolina and Louisiana, defining the 
powers of the slave-holder, and then remarks : — " Such is 
ihe essential nature of American slavery, as defined by the 
2 



14 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

law which institutes and authorizes it. This " relation," 
which our august Assembly of divines and elders, the teach- 
ers and judges of religion and morals, plainly tell us, by 
implication is not in itself wrong, is simply a law — constitu- 
ted relation." The law of South Carohna, we are told, 
says — "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and 
adjudged in law to be chattels personal, in the hands of 
their owners and possessors, and their executors, administra- 
tors, and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes 
whatsoever." Well, did the General Assembly say, the 
laws of South Carolina are either wise or just? It did not. 
Might not those laws be greatly modified without destroy- 
ing the relation of master and slave ? Every man of com- 
mon sense knows, they might. Then they do not consti- 
tute the essential nature of slavery, as the editor asserts. 
Again — are christians obliged to regard and treat their slaves 
as mere "chatties personal," as not " sentient beings, but 
things," because such is the language of the law, or of wri- 
ters on law ? May they not, whilst they claim their servi- 
ces, treat them as rational, accountable, immortal beings, 
with all kindness, providing abundant food and raiment; 
and affording opportuities for religious instruction ? Are 
the christians of South Carolina to be held individually re- 
sponsible for the laws of the state ? Or are they to be ex- 
communicated on the presumption that they are as cruel in 
the treatment of their slaves, as the law permits them to 
be ? With the same propriety I might charge these Ab- 
olitionist gentlemen with treating their wives and children, 
as cruelly as the civil law permits, and insist on their being 
excluded from the fellowship of the church. The folly of 
holding individuals responsible for the laws which regulate 
slavery, is perfectly manifest. 

It is, indeed, the duty of every christian, as a citizen, to 
seek, by all proper means, the repeal of oppressive laws, 
and the amendment of such as are defective. And this the 
General Assembly, in adopting the Report, exhorted the 
members of the churches under their care to do. Individu- 
als are responsible for existing laws, only so far as their 
influence as citizens, and their votes, will go to change 
them. 

And here I must notice one of the many slanders recent- 
ly published against the General Assembly, viz : that they 
approved of giving to the slaves simply oral mstructioti. 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 15 

and of withholding from them the right to read the Word 
of God. What is the language of the Report on this sub- 
ject? It is as follows: " Every christian and philanthro- 
pist certainly should seek, by all peaceable and lawful 
means, the repeal of unjust and oppressive laws, and the 
amendment of such as are defective, so as to protect the 
slaves from cruel treatment by wicked men, and secure to 
them the right to receive religious instruction.^'' Slaves 
have never been forbidden to receive oral instruction. Of 
course, the language of the Report refers to the right to read 
the Word of God. The importance of the remarks now 
made will be still more manifest, from the following edito- 
rial article in the Watchman of the Valley of June 26th. 

" Nothing Wrong m the Relation Itself. — Dr. Edward 
Beecher, at the late meeting of the Massachusetts Abolition 
Society, adduced the folllowing law case. 

"A man was tried in North Carolina, for shooting his 
own female slave. Judge Ruffin decided, that according to 
slave law, the act could not be pronounced criminal, because 
the master must have unlimited control over the body of 
his slave, or the system cannot stand. In regard to this 
decision, the judge confessed, that "he felt its harshness, 
and that every person, in his retirement, must repudiate it; 
but in the actual state of things it must be so: there is no 
remedy.''' 

"According to the decision, then, of a Southern judge, 
extorted from him by the inexorable necessity of his legal 
logic, in opposition to his humane feelings, the relation of 
slavery, as constituted by law, is in itself cruel, authorizing 
the unlimited control of the master over the body of his 
slave, life not excepted. Why ? Because without such 
control, the system could not stand ; i. e. the relation could 
not exist, as it is now legally constituted. No sin in such 
a relation? Then there is no sin, a Carolina jurist being 
judge, for doing whatever is necessary, (be it stripes, tor- 
ture, or death,) to preserve this sinless, lawful relation !" 

It is truly astonishing that intelligent ministers of the 
Gospel will attempt to excite the feelings of men by such 
tales. I will not assert, that no Southern judge ever ren- 
dered himself ridiculous by delivering such sentiments as 
these ; and yet it appears incredible. But it is worse than 
vain for Dr. Edward Beecher and the Editor of the Watch- 
man, to attempt to convince the people of this country, that 



16 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

the system of slavery cannot be sustained, unless the mas- 
ter have unlimited control over the lives of his slaves. Ev- 
ery body knows better. They might just as well assert, 
that a man cannot preserve family government, unless he 
have the right to kill his wife and cliildren ! 

But let us admit, that the system of slavery cannot be 
sustained, unless the master have unlimited power over the 
body of the slave ; then I can proclaim to the Abolitionists 
good news — that in Kentucky, and indeed in all the slave- 
holding states, the system of slavery has received its death- 
blow ; for in no one of them, so far as I know, has the 
master any such power over his slaves. The law of Ken- 
tucky, passed in 1830, is as follows: 

" That if any owner of a slave shall treat such slave cru- 
elly and inhumanly, so as in the opinion of the jury to en- 
danger the life or Jimb of swch slave, or shall not supply his 
slave with sufficient food and raiment, it shall and may be 
lawful for any pei*son acquainted with the fact or facts, to 
state and set forth in a petition to the circuit court, the facts, 
or any of them aforesaid, of which the defendant hath been 
guilty, and pray that such slave or slaves may be taken 
from the possession of the owner, and sold for the benefit 
of such owner, agreeably to the 7ih article of the constitu- 
tion." 

By a subsequent section, it is made the duty of the cir- 
cuit court to take up such cases and try them immediately 
after getting through with the criminal cases before it. A 
precisely similar law exists in Louisiana^ as I am informed 
by a very respectable lawyer, w^ho is a member of the 
Episcopal church, and has practiced law in New Orleans 
for thirteen years past. He informed me, tliat he had, in 
several instances, known slaves taken from their masters in 
consequence of cruel treatment, and sold into other hands. 
In one instance, the negro did not sell for a sufficient sum 
to pay the costs of the suit. The cruel master, therefore, 
lost his slave and paid all the costs. Similar laws exist in 
Alabama. Dr. Drake, in a lecture on the subject of slave- 
ry, delivered in this city last winter, stated, that whilst tra- 
vehng through Alabama, he met a sherifl' and his posse re- 
turning from the penitentiary, where they had safely lodged 
a man, who owned a farm and a number of slaves, and who 
had been convicted, chiefiy on circumstantial evidence, of 
having killed one of his slaves. Ten years, if I rightly re- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 17 

member, was to be the period of his confinement in the 
penitentiary. 

If, then, it be true, as Dr. Beecher and the editor of the 
Watchman would have the people believe, that the system 
of slavery cannot be sustained, unless the master have un- 
limited control over his slaves ; it must soon be abolished, 
and the Abolitionists need give themselves little further 
trouble. In Kentucky, the slave has the same protection 
that a child has. 

But what, I ask, must be the inevitable effect of publish- 
ing such stories, and making such appeals ? If they are 
believed in the free states, the effect will be, to make the 
people of the South regarded as monsters in human shape ; 
and in the slave-holding states, those who publish them will 
be detested as a set of base slanderers. In vain will such 
men address the slave-holder on the duty of liberating his 
slaves. It is thus that Abolitionists have lost every particle 
of influence which they might have exerted in the slave- 
holding states. 

The law of the Presbyterian church on the subject of 
the treatment of slaves, is clear and explicit. In 1818, the 
General Assembly gave the following injunction to all church 
Sessions and Presbyteries under their care. 

"We enjoin it on all church Sessions and Presbyteries, 
under the care of this Assembly, to discountenance, and, as 
far as possible, to prevent all cruelty, of whatever kind, in 
the treatment of slaves ; especially the cruelty of separating 
husband and wife, parents and children ; and that which 
consists in selling slaves to those who will either themselves 
deprive these unhappy people of the blessings of the Gos- 
pel, or who will transport them to places where the Gospel 
is not proclaimed, or where it is forbidden to slaves to at- 
tend upon its institutions. The manifest violation or disre- 
gard of the injunction here given, in its true spirit and 
intention, ought to be considered as just ground for the dis- 
cipline and censures of the church. And if it shall ever 
happen that a christian professor, in our communion, shall 
sell a slave who is also in communion and good standing 
with our church, contrary to his or her will and inclination, 
it ought immediately to claim the particular attention of the 
proper church judicature ; and unless there be such peculiar 
circumstances attending the case as can but seldom happen, 
it ought to be followed, without delay, by a suspension of 

2* 



IS LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

the offender from all the privileges of the church, till he re- 
pent, and make all the reparation in his power to the in- 
jm-ed party." 

Such is the law of our church on this subject. If the 
Abolitionists can prove any member of the JPresbyterian 
church, guilty of cruel treatment to his slaves, let them take 
measures to have such member brought before the proper 
tribunal; and I pledge my word, he will be dealt witli just 
as if guilty of any other immorality. Tlie venerable Dr, 
Chalmers well remarks — " Our understanding of Christian- 
ity is, that it deals with persons and ecclesiastical institu- 
tions, and that the object of these last is to operate directly 
and proximately with the most wholesome effect on the 
consciences and tlie character of persons. In conformity 
with this view, a purely and righteously adniini-stered church 
will exclude from the ordinances, not a man as a slave-hold- 
er, but every man, whether slave-holder or mot, as licen- 
tious, as intemperate, as dishonest.,"^ 

4. After what I have already said, it is scarcely nccessay 
to say, that the q^uestion between us and the Abolitionists 
is not, whetlier a christian may regard and treat his slaves 
as mere proper/ 1/, not as ^'sentient beings.'" Men own 
horses: but tliey are not permitted by the civil law, to treat 
them inhumanly. Much more is a christian, who owns a 
slave, bound to treat him as a man, with all kindness, and 
to aflbrd him tlie necessary opportunity to receive reli- 
gious instruction. The language of the Report oihe this 
point is clear and strong : " Nor is this Assembly to be un- 
derstood as countenanciog the idea, that masters may regard 
their slaves as mere property, not as human beings, rational, 
accountable, immortal. The Scriptures pres<rribe not only 
the duties of servants, but of masters also, warning the lat- 
ter to discharge those duties, " Knowing that their Master 
is in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with 
him." 

5. The real question at issue between us and the Aboli- 
tionists is stated by Rev. T. E. Thomas, a very zealous 
Abolitionist, in his Review of Dr. Junkin's speech on sla- 
very. He says — " That question now in process of inves- 
tigation among the American churches, is this and no other. 
Are the professed christians in our respective connections, 
who hold their fellow-men as slaves, thereby guilty of a sin 
which demands the cognizance of the church ; and after due 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 19 

admonition, the application of discipline," p. 17. This is 
precisely the question. Is the mere fact of holding a slave, 
however kindly he may be treated, and under whatever cir- 
cumstances, a heinous and scandalous sin, to be visited by 
the discipline of the church ? The Abolitionists affirm : w^e 
deny. 

And it may be well to remark, that according to them, 
the holding of slaves is a sin of the most heinous character, 
even worse than theft and robbery : it is man-stealing, or 
a crime of equal magnitude. 

Now I ailirm, that circumstances have existed, and cir- 
cumstances do now exist, which so far justify individuals in 
holding slaves ; that is, in claiming their services, ivith 
the corresponding obligation to treat them as men, as ra- 
tional, accountable, immortal beings ; that the church 
cannot, on that account, exclude diem Irom her communion, 
witliout trampling under foot the authority of God, and 
lording it over his heritage. To make the subject perfectly 
clear, I will state two important, but obvious principles, viz. 

1st. God never did, and never could, give his people per- 
mission to form a relation in itself sinful, or sinful under 
the circumstances attending its formation. In other words, 
God, being inlinitely holy, never did, or could, give his 
people permission to commit sin. This principle is so 
perfectly self-evident, that it would be worse than useless to 
reason with one who would dispute its truth. 

2nd. The church of Christ has no authority to make terms 
of communion which the Apostles of Christ did not make, 
to exclude from her fellowship characters, received by them ; 
to require as a condition of membership what they did not 
require. This principle is about as clear as the one just 
stated. He who calls it in question, must contend, either 
that the Apostles were so infaithful to their trust, that they 
admitted into the church as christians, sinners who ought to 
have been excluded ; or, that that which was not inconsistent 
with Christianity in the days of the Apostles, is inconsis- 
tent with it now. The former position, no one, I presume, 
will maintain; and to maintain the latter, is to say that 
Christianity is not now what it was in their day. But 
Paul says, " If any man preach any other Gospel unto 
vou than that ye have received, let him be accursed.." 
*Gal. i. 9. 

These principles few persons, I presume, will call in. 



20 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

question. I now state, and will proceed to prove two im- 
portant facts, viz. 

1. God did expressly give permission to his people, un- 
der the Old Dispensation, to hold slaves. 

2. The Apostles of Christ did receive into the church 
slave-holders, as christians in good and regular standing, 
and did not require them to liberate their slaves. 

If these facts can be established, it follows, incontrovert- 
ibly, that Abolitionism is false. I proceed to prove the first. 

1. It is a fact, that Abraham, " the father of the faithful," 
" the friend of God," did buy slaves with his money, and 
receive them as a present, and that God did not require 
him to manumit them, but commanded that they should re- 
ceive circumcision — the seal of the covenant. Gen. xvii. 
12, 13 : "And he that is eight days old shall be circumci- 
sed among you, every man-child in your generations : he 
that is born in the house, or bought ivith money of any 
stranger which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy 
house, and he that is bought ivith thy money, must needs 
be circumcised." Now if Abraham bought persons, they 
most certainly belonged to him. If, then, slave-holding 
were, under all circumstances, a heinous sin, can it be be- 
lieved, that God would have entered into covenant with 
Abraham — a covenant which constituted him the father of 
his church in all ages, without requiring him to abandon 
that sin? Still more, would God have directed him to cir- 
cumcise his slaves, instead of commanding him to set them 
at liberty ? 

In Gen. xx. 14, we find Abraham receiving slaves as a 
present from Abimelech. "And Abimelech took sheep and 
oxen, and man-servants and women-servants, and gave them 
unto Abraham." If Abraham had been an Abolitionist, 
would he have received such a present? Would he not 
rather have denounced Abimelech as a man-stealer and a 
robber ? 

And let it not be forgotten, that when Abraham bought 
slaves, or received them as a present, there certainly was no 
law limiting the time of their servitude. Moreover, it is 
certain, that slaves might then be subjected to punishment, 
if they failed to do their duty. We have some account of 
one of the slaves of Abraham, whose name was Hagar. 
That she was a slave, is evident — 1. Because, in the allego- 
ry introduced by Paul, in Gal., 4th chap., she is so repre- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 21 

sented in contrast with Sarah, who was free — " Cast out 
the bond- woman and her son : for the son of the bond-wo- 
man shall not be heir with the son of the free woman, &c." 
2ndiy. She was punished by Sarah, when she treated her 
mistress disrespectfully. When Sarah complained to Abra- 
ham, that Hagar treated her with contempt, he said — " Be- 
hold thy maid is in thy hand ; do to her as it pleasetli 
thee. And when Sarah dealt hardly with her (or punished 
her) she fled from her face," Gen. xvi. 6. In what follows 
we have an instructive lesson, in contrast with the princi- 
ples inculcated by modern Abolitionists. " And the angel 
of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilder- 
ness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, 
Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou ? and whither 
wilt thou go ? And she said, I flee from the face of my 
mistress Sarah. And the angel of the Lord said unto her. 
Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands," 
Gen. XX. 7 — 9. Is this the instruction which modern Ab- 
olitionists give to fugitive slaves 1 Do they not advise, and 
even exhort them to run away ? Nay — did not the Aboli- 
tion Society of New York advise slaves to steal, not only 
from their masters, but from anybody and everybody in the 
slave-holding states, or in the free states, whatever might be 
necessary to aid them in making their escape? How comes 
it to pass, that Abolitionists preach doctrines so opposite to 
those taught by an angel of God ? Are they more benevo- 
lent than he ? Or are they wiser than he ? 

Abolitionists, indeed, tell us, she was required to return, 
because she was Abraham's " secondary wife^ But this 
is not the reason given by the angel. Moreover, she was 
afterwards sent away by God's direction. If she were con- 
sidered Abraham's wife, and therefore bound to return, is it 
not passing strange, that she was afterwards sent away by 
divine direction. 

2. A Hebrew might be sold, according to the law of Mo- 
ses, for six years ; and this servitude might become perpet- 
ual. Exo. xxi. 2 : "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six 
years he shall serve ; and in the seventh he shall go out 
free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go 
out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go 
out with him. If his master hath given him a wife, and 
she have born him sons or daughters ; the wife and her 
children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by him- 



22 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

self. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, 
my wife, and my children ; 1 will not go oiU free : then his 
master shall bring him unto the judges ; he shall also bring 
him to the door, or unto the door-post ; and his master shall 
bore his ear through with an awl ; and he shall serve him 
forever." See also Deut. xv. 

And here it may be well to remark, that in the law of 
Moses an important difierence was made between the He- 
brew servant, who was sold, and the servant bought of a 
stranger ; as also between the hired servant and the ser- 
vant bought with money. Levit. xxv. 39,40: "And if 
thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be 
sold unto thee ; thou shah not compel him to serve as a 
bond-servant : but as a hired servant, and as a sojourner, 
he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee until the year of 
jubilee." There were amongst the Jews three classes of 
servants, besides those sold for crime or debt, viz : the hi- 
red servant, the Hebrew sold for six years, to be treated as a 
hired servant, and the bond-servant, bought of the stranger. 

3. This leads me to remark, that the Jews were ex- 
pressly permitted to buy slaves from the heathen, and from 
the strangers who lived amongst tliem ; and these slaves 
were inherited by their children. Levit. xxv. 44: "Both 
thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them 
shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the 
children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of 
them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, 
which they begat in your land : and they shall be your pos- 
session. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your 
children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they 
shall be your bond-men forever : but over your brethren, the 
children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with 
rigor." And not only the people generally, but even the 
priest might own slaves, Levit. xxii. 11 : "But if the priest 
buy any soul wiihhis money, he shall eat of it, (the passo- 
ver,) and he that is born in his house." 

4. That these servants were slaves, is clear, not only 
from the language already cited, but from the fact that they 
were liable to corporeal punishment from their masters, if 
they failed to do their duty. Exod. xxi. 20, 21 : "And if a 
man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die un- 
der his hand ; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 23 

if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished : for 
he is his money." Observe, these slaves are represented 
as the money, the possession of the master, and the inheri- 
tmice of his children ; and the master might enforce obedi- 
ence by inflicting corporeal punishment, though not permit- 
ted to destroy life or limb. Can any candid man resist the 
conviction, that God did expressly permit the Jews to pur- 
chase and to own slaves ? 

I will now notice some of the methods by which Aboli- 
tionists attempt to evade the force of this evidence. 

1. They tell us, that the individuals whom the Jews bought, 
sold themselves. To this plea I answer — 1st. If the rela- 
tion of master and slave be in itself sinful, as the Aboli- 
tionists maintain, no man had the right to sell himself into 
the condition of slavery, and no man had the right to buy 
another, and thus form that sinful relation. It may be said, 
that the man who sold himself was paid for his labor. But 
let it not be forgotten that unrequited labor is only one of 
the evils of slavery enumerated by Abolitionists, and not 
the principal evil either. 2nd. But it is, of course, not true 
that children sold themselves, even if it be admitted that 
adults did. The Jews were permitted to buy the children 
of the heathen round about them, Levit. xxv. 44, 45 : " Of 
their families, &;c." Children, therefore, might be sold by 
their parents into perpetual slavery. Or if it be asserted, 
that at the year of jubilee — the fiftieth year — they were 
free, (though contrary to fact) yet they might be enslaved 
for forty-nine-years ! 3d. But it is admitted that adults did 
not always sell ihemselves. Mr. Thomas, a zealous Aboli- 
tionist, says — "The advocates of slavery can devise but one 
answer, accordant with their views ; namely, that the hea- 
then round about were slave-holders : that they had captives 
taken in war, &;c. whom they might sell to the Jewish pur- 
chaser. fFe admit that some serva7its of this sort might 
be bought of the heathen who claimed to be their masters, 
and shall prove presently, that even such persons could not 
be held by the Hebrews, without their consent." It is here 
admitted, that servants might be bought of heathen men 
who claimed them as their property. Of course, then, it is 
not true, that they always sold themselves. Indeed there is 
no evidence whatever, that this was even commonly done. 
The Jews were expressly permitted to buy slaves, and 
were not forbidden to buy of a third person. Abraham re- 



24 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

ceived from Abimelech slaves as a present. If he could re- 
ceive them in this way, certainly he could have purchased 
them of Abimilech, if he had chosen to do so. 

2. But Abolitionists assert, that the Jews could not pur- 
chase slaves without their consent. To this I answer — 1st. 
The statement can apply only to adults. Children, who 
were bought of the heathen, or of strangers, were of course 
not consulted. If they had been, the obtaining of their con- 
sent would have been a mere mockery. They were not ca- 
pable of judging and acting for themselves in a matter of 
such moment. Yet children might be sold into perpetual 
bondage by their parents. 2nd. As to adults, no christian, 
it is believed, would purchase them without their consent. 
Nothing is more common in the slave-holding states, than 
for the slaves of christians, and even of those not profess- 
ing religion, to select their own masters, w^hen they are 
obliged to be sold, or even hired. And nothing is more 
common than for those who purchase, first to inquire of the 
slave, whether he is willing to live with them. I should 
place a very low estimate upon the piety of any professor 
of religion, who would buy an adult slave against his wish, 
or who would sell an obedient slave to a man with whom 
he was unwilling to live. But if, as Abolitionists assert, 
slave-holding is in itself a sin, the consent of the slave to 
live with his purchaser, would not change the moral char- 
acter of the relation. 

3. Abolitionists tell us, that the time of servitude amongst 
the Jew^s, was limited — that the servants bought of the hea- 
then and of strangers, went out free at the year of jubilee — 
the fiftieth year. Mr. Thomas says — " They were never 
purchased for six years ; but always till the jubilee." Re- 
vieiv of Junkin, page 90. Suppose this to be true ; does 
it alter the principle ? If slave-holding is in itself sinful, 
then it is sinful to hold a man in that condition y^/'/'y years, 
or Jive years. And if there are circumstances which justi- 
fy the relation for fifty years, there may be circumstances 
which would justify it for fifty-four years, or longer, if there 
be no express law against it. We are now inquiring mto the 
morality of the principle, which is not affected by the du- 
ration of the servitutle. Besides, if men were sold into 
slavery till the jubilee, multitudes of them would never be 
free. Suppose men sold by the heathen to a Jew at the 
age of 25 or 30 years, and suppose this sale made immedi- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 25 

ately after the jubilee ; what could be their age at the re- 
turn of the jubilee, fifty years after ? Or suppose children 
at the age of 15, sold thus; what would be their age? 
What proportion of thein would live to see the time when 
they would be free ? And of what great advantage would 
it be to set them at liberty, when near three-score years 
of age ? 

4. It has been asserted, that amongst the Hebrews slaves 
received wages. There is no evidence whatever that this 
is true. It is true, however, that in slave-holding states 
many of the slaves do receive better wages, than many of the 
poorer classes in our own city. What numbers amongst us 
do labor, day and night, far more severely than the slaves, 
and yet are obliged to depend on charity in part for the sup- 
port of themselves and their children ! The slaves, at least 
amongst reputable men, are well clad and fed, and taken care 
of in sickness and old age. Dr. Cunningham, of Scotland, 
says — "They [christian men in the slave-holding stales] 
define this right of property [in slaves] to be a mere com- 
pulsory and permanent right to a man's services, laying up- 
on a master the obligations to treat him well and kindly, 
maintain him comfortably, and give him all the opportuni- 
ties of intellectual, moral, and religious improvement ; -and 
there are men who make conscience of this too, that the 
slave is entitled to his wages. They end^nvor to form as 
correct an estimate as they can, of what, in the actual posi- 
tion of society, would be the fair remuneration for that man's 
work. There may be conditions of society, and a state of 
things, when a man cannot gain enough to maintain himself 
and his family. There are thousands in this c(,uniry, who 
work twenty hours a day, and cannot get the means of 
maintaining themselves. Tnat, therefore, is a question of 
circumstances. Many, however, make conscience of ascer- 
taining the amount of wages due to their slaves, and give 
them that ; and cases are not uncommon of a slave in this 
way raising money for purchasing his own liberty." 

5. But we are told, that God permitted polygamy and 
concubinage, as well as slavery, under the Old Dispensation; 
and that, on our principleF, we must now tolerate in the 
church those things. I answer, God never gave pei mission 
to any man to marry more than one wife, or to have concu- 
bines ; but he did expressly permit men to purchase and 
hold slaves. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. There 

3 



26 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

were indeed pious men, who were guilty of the sin of 
polygamy ; but no permission was given them by God, 
to form such connections, any more than permission was 
given Jacob to tell his father a falsehood, in order to obtain 
his blessing. 

The question may be asked, why God gave permission 
to the Jews to hold slaves ? Doubtless the condition of 
those whom they purchased, was greatly improved, be- 
cause, they were brought under the protection of the divine 
law, which shielded them from the cruelty their heathen 
masters, or even their parents might inflict upon them ; and 
because they were instructed in that divine religion wliich 
would secure to them much happiness in this life, and eternal 
glory hereafter. One of Abraham's servants, whom he 
sent to obtain a wife for Isaac, was an eminently pious man. 
But whatever reasons may be assigned for the permission 
given the Jews to hold slaves, the fact is as certain as lan- 
guage can make it. There were circumstances, therefore, 
which then justified the practice. 

6. But it is said that the Jews, though permitted to buy 
slaves, were not permitted to sell them. To this I an- 
swer — 1st. This assertion, if true, does not affect the prin- 
ciple. The question between us and the Abolitionists, is 
not whether slave-selling is a sin, but whether sluxe-holding 
is in itself sinful. The Jews were expressly permitted to 
btiy men ; and that which I buy with my money, belongs 
to me for all the purposes to which it may be lawfully ap- 
plied. A man may not use his horse as he may use a piece 
of timber; nor may he use his slave as if he were a horse. 
But if I buy a horse, he is mine ; and I may use his servi- 
ces lawfully. If I buy a man, he is mine, so far as his ser- 
vices are concerned ; and I am solemnly bound to treat him 
as a man. It matters not whether the law permits me to 
sell him — he is my slave. 2nd. But the law of Moses no- 
where prohibits the Jew from selling the slave bought of a 
heathen man or a stranger. And " where there is no law, 
there is no transgression." The Jew was permitted to buy, 
and was not forbidden to sell. 

We are then forced to one of two conclusions : either 
God gave express permission to the Jews to indulge in hei- 
nous and scandalous sin — to be man-stealers and robbers; 
or slave-holding is not in itself sinful. No believer in the 
inspiration of the Scriptures, will assert the first ; all are, 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 27 

therefore, constrained to adopt the second — that slave-hold- 
mg is not in itself sinful — that there are circumstances 
which justify it : and, therefore, the fundamental doctrine of 
Abolitionism is proved false. 

Second. I proceed now to establish the second fact, viz : 
the aposdes of Christ did receive into the church slave-hold- 
ers, as pious and consistent christians, and did not require 
them to manumit their slaves. The evidence of this fact is 
found in the following portions of Scripture : 

Eph. vi. 5 — 9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are 
your masters accordhig to the flesh, with fear and tremblings 
in singleness of heart, as unto Christ, &c. And ye masters, 
do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening : know- 
ing that your Master is also in heaven ; neither is there respect 
of persons with him." Col. iii. 22 : " Servants, obey in all 
tilings your masters according to the flesh ; not with eye- 
service, as men-pleasers ; but in singleness of heart, fearing 
God." ch. iv. 1: " Masters, give to your servants that which 
is just and equal ; knowing tiiat ye also have a Master in 
heaven." 1 Tim. vi. 1 — 2 : "Let as many servants as are 
under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, 
that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise 
them, because they are brethren ; but rather do them ser- 
vice, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the 
benefit. These things teach and exhort." 1 Pet. ii. 18, 19 : 
" Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear ; not on- 
ly to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For 
this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God en- 
dure grief, suffering wrongfully." 

That the masters here spoken of, were slave-holders, and 
the servants, slaves, is clear, for a number of considera- 
tions. 

1. The literal and ordinary meaning of the word dou- 
los, translated servant, is slave. On this point there is, 
amongst lexicographers, critics and commentators, but one 
opinion, so far as I know. That you may be satisfied of the 
truth of this statement, I will give the definition of this word, 
and some of its cognates, as given by several of the best 
lexicographers. 

Robertson defines doulos — "a slave, a servant — spoken 
of involuntary service, e. g. a slave in opposition to eleuthe' 
ros — free." Douleia — slavery, bondage. Douleuo — to be 



28 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 

a slave, or servant, to serve. Doulos — to make a slave — to 
bring into bondage. 

Bretschneider detines doulos — servvs, qui sui juris non 
est, cui opponitur ho eleiifheros. 1 Cor. vii. 21 — A slave 
— one who is not under his own control, to which is oppo- 
sed eleufheros — free. Doidoo — to make a slave, to reduce 
to slavery. 

Donncgan — a slave ; a servant, as opposed to despotes — a 
master [or slave-holder] . Doidoo — to reduce to slavery, &c. 

Groves — Doide — a female slave — Doidos — a slave, a 
servant — Douloo, to enslave, reduce to slavery. 

Greenfield — Doidos — a man in a servile state — male slave 
or servant. Douloo — to reduce to servitude, enslave, op- 
press by retaining in servitude. 

These lexicographers all agree, that the primary and 
ordinary meaning of the wo-rd doulos, as used both by pro- 
fane and sacred writers, is slave, not a hired servant. 'I'he 
Greeks had a word to signify a hired servant, viz : rnistho- 
tos ; and this word is used both in the Septuagint and the 
New Testament. It is used in Mark i. 20,^ and is transla- 
ted "hired servants;" and also in John x. 12, 13, where 
it is translated "hireling." In Levit. xxv. 39, 40, it is 
used by the Septuagint to distinguish a hired servant from a 
bondman or slave. But this word is not once used by 
the apostles, in their addresses to masters and servants. 

Prof. Stuart says — Doidos means, in itself, one devo- 
ted to the service of another, one who is subject to the will 
and control of another. A servant of a man, i. e. of any 
common man, is a slave; at least, the word, in its strict 
sense, would import this. Comment, on Rom. i. 1. 1 
presume, it will not be pretended, that Stuart is a pro- 
slavery man» 

Rev. Ji. Barnes says : " The proper meaning of this 
word servant, doulos, is slave — one who is not free. It ex- 
presses the condition of one who has a master, or who is 
at the control of another." Comment, on Ro77i. i. 1. 

Scott the Commentator, says — " In general, the servants 
at that time were slaves, the property of their masters." 
Comment, on Ephe. vi. 5 — 9. Again, in his comments 
on 1 Tim. vii. 1, he says — "This shows, that christian 
masters were not required to set their slaves at liberty ; 
though they were instructed to behave toward them in such 
a manner, as would greatly lessen and nearly annihilate the 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 29 

evils of slavery. It would have excited much confusion, 
awakened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly re-- 
tarded the progress of Christianity, had the liberation of 
slaves by their converts been expressly required by the 
Apostles." 

Henry says — " These servants were generally slaves." 

Dr. Dick says — " The apostle makes use of strong lan- 
guage on this subject, and it is worthy of attention, that, in 
his days, servants among the Greeks and Romans were 
slaves." 

McNight says, — "The word doulos properly means a 
slave. Anciently the Greeks and Romans had scarcely any 
servants but slaves : perhaps also he (Paul) was thus par- 
ticular in his precepts to slaves, because the Jews held 
perpetual slavery to be unlawful, and because the judaizing 
teachers propagated that doctrine in the church." 

Such are the opinions of some of the best lexicogra- 
phers, commentators and critics, concerning the meaning 
of the word doulos, translated servant, and concerning the 
relation intended to be expressed by the word master and 
servant in tlie New Testament. Authorities might be ea- 
sily multiplied. Indeed, so far as I know, there has been 
but one opinion amongst learned men on this subject. It 
is in vain for modern Abolitionists to assert, in the face of 
all standard authorities, that the servants addressed by the 
aposdes, were not slaves, but hired servants. 

2. But the sense in which Paul used the word doulos, i& 
made perfectly clear in 1 Cor. vii. 21 : "Art thou called be-, 
ing a servant? (^douios) care not for it; but if thou mayest 
be free, use it rather." Here the word doulos is pla,ced in 
contrast with eleutheros—free, and therefore necessarily 
means slave, 2km\ it is s,o understood by Abolitionists them- 
selves. They also admit, that it is used in the same sense, 
in Tim. vi. 1. Let them prove, if they can, that in the 
other Epistles, Paul used it in a different sense. 

3. The directions given to servants by the apostles, are 
such as would be given to slaves, and such as are appropri- 
ate only to such. " Servants be obedient to them that are 
your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, 
in singleness of your heart as unto Christ. Not with eye- 
service, as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, dot 
ing the will of God from the heart," &;c. So also Coloss, 
iii. %Z. Compare these directions with those given by f e% 



30 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

ter, who, as even Abolitionists admit, was addressing slaves ! 
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not 
only to the good and gentle, but to the fro ward," &c. Is it 
common, is it proper, thus to address persons who are hired 
to do your work ? Would you teach them to obey those 
who had hired them, "with fear and trembling?" Would 
not your hired servants resent such language as a gross insult? 

4. But even the most zealous Abolitionists admit, tliat in 
1 Tim. vi. 1 — , Paul speaks of masters and slaves ; for liere 
he not only uses the word doidos, but speaks of servants as 
" under the yoke.*'' Moreover, he speaks of masters as des- 
potai — a word which, they admit, properly means an own- 
er of slaves. Mr. Thomas, a most zealous Abolitionist, who 
abounds in criticism on the Hebrew and Greek, says : " This 
word [despofcb) properly denotes the possessor, or master 
of slaves ; one who rules as a master over his slaves, with 
uncontroled power, a despot." Review, f. 116. Let us 
now read the passage : " Let as many servants as are under 
the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that 
the name of God and liis doctrine be not blasphemed. And 
they that have believing masters {despQtas), let them not 
despise them, because they are brethren ; but rather do 
them service, because they are faithful and beloved, parta- 
kers of the benefit." Here we have not only masters of 
slaves, but ^^ believing masters,** '•'• faithful and beloved;*'' 
and their slaves, who are also believers, are exhorted not to 
despise them, because they are brethren, and, therefore, as 
christians, on an equality ; but to serve them the more 
faithfully, because they are christians. " This shows," 
says Dr. Scott, "that christian masters were not required 
to set their slaves at liberty, though they were instructed to 
behave towards them in such a manner as would greatly 
lessen, and nearly aurnihilate the evils of slavery." On this 
passage, Henry thus comments : " Or, suppose the master 
were a believer, and the servant a believer too ; would not 
that excuse him, because in Christ there is neither bond nor 
free ? No — by no means : they that have beheving mas- 
ters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ; 
for that brotherhood relates only to spiritual privileges, not 
to any outward dignity or advantage ; nay, rather do them 
service, because they are faithful and beloved," &c. 

How do the Abolitionists escape the clear fact, that we 
here find slave-holders recognised as faithful christians, no! 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 3^1 

commanded to free their slaves ? Mr. Thomas labors, with 
most gross abuse of all criticism, to prove, that in this one 
instance Paul used the word despofes in " an unusual sense." 
But if, in this sense, it does not mean a slave-holder, but 
one who has hired servants, it has not merely an wmsual 
meaning, but a meaning it never has elsewhere. Thus, for 
the special accommodation of Abolitionism, Paul is made to 
call men slave-holders, who, if we are to believe Abolition- 
ists, really held no slaves, and even abhorred the practice ! ! 
There is not, I venture to assert, a respectable critic, or 
commentator, or scholar in the world, wlio will sustain Mr. 
Thomas in his assertions. He does not attempt to adduce 
one. 

But, says Mr. Thomas, " the epithet ' believing,'^ would 
prove to a primi/ive christian, that despotes was taken in 
an unusual sense." Yes ; if the primitive christians were 
Abolitionists such as Mr. Thomas. This, however, is the 
point to be proved. But he says, Paul spoke of believing 
despotes^ beheving slave-holders, just as we speak of re- 
formed dnmkards. How does he know ? Is this the ob- 
vious meaning of his language \ Have wise and good men, 
even anti-slavery men, so understood it? They have not. 
Why, then, must it have this meaning here ? Only be- 
cause, if it be taken in its obvious sense, the sense in which 
it has always been understood, it gives a death-blow to mo- 
del n Abolitionism! But look at the connection, — they 
that have (not have had) believing owners ; let them obey 
and serve them. What need of such an exhortation to men 
working for wages, according to a bargain made by them- 
selves ? There is no cure but grace, for men who will thus 
boldly and recklessly wrest the Scriptures from their obvi- 
ous meaning to suit their notions. It is precisely in this 
way that the world has been filled with religious errors of 
the worst character. It is impossible to use language which 
they cannot pervert. 

Peter exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters 
with all fear ; " not only to the good and gentle, but also 
to the froward." It would sound strangely to hear men — 
christian men — talk of good and gentle man-stealers, good 
and gentle robbers and tyrants — good and gentle men stain- 
ed with blood ! But modern Abolitionism is obliged to 
sustain itself as every other gross error, by the most palpa-*. 
ble perversion of the language of the Scriptui:es.. 



32 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

The fact is clear, that the Apostles received slave-holders 
into the christian church, as brethren in the Lord, and did 
not require them to liberate their slaves ; though they did 
require them to treat them kindly. I have already quoted 
Scott, Henry, McKnight, Stuart, Barnes, Dick ; besides 
several of the most celebrated lexicographers, in proof of 
this fact. I will refer to a few others, known as eminent 
men, and as anti-slavery men, to the same point. Let me 
just give one more quotation from Rev. Albert Barnes : — 
" The object of this (Eph. vi. 9,) is to secure to servants 
proper treatment. It is evident, from this, that there were 
in the christian cliurch those who were masters / and the 
most obvious interpretation is, that they were the owners of 
slaves. Some such persons would be converted, as such 
are now. Paul did not say, that they could not be chris- 
tians. He did not say, that they should be excluded at 
once from the communion. He did not hold them up to 
reproach, or use harsh and severe language toward them. 
He taught them tlieir duty towards those who were under 
them, and laid down principles which, if followed, would 
lead ultimately to universal freedom." How different the 
conduct of Paul from that of Abolitionists ! Mr. Barnes 
here admits all for which we contend, viz : that slavehold- 
ers were, by the apostles, received into the christian church. 
He says, Paul did not say, that they should be excluded at 
once from the communion. Did he say, they should be 
excluded at all? If he did, let Abolitionists point to the 
passage. But Mr. Barnes says, Paul taught masters their 
duties to their servants. Then immediate emancipation 
was not one of their duties, under the circumstances ; for, 
as he admits, he did not require this. Indeed he goes on 
to say, — "If the master and his slave were both christians, 
even if the relation continued, it would rather be a relation 
of mutual confidence. The master would become the pro- 
tector, the teacher, the guide, the friend j the servant would 
become the faithful helper — rendering service to one whom 
he loved, and to whom he felt himself bound by the obliga- 
tions of gratitude and affection." 

Dr. Spring, of New York, a decidedly anti-slavery man, 
says, — "While they (the apostles) neither excommunicate, 
nor even rebuke the master, simply because he is a mas- 
ter, they do not withhold tlieir rebuke of all his oppression 
and injustice-^— nay, they thunder forth their anathemas against 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 33 

the degradation, the ignorance, the misery, the wickedness, 
and every violation of the personal and domestic rights to 
which he subjects his slaves, and solemnly remind him of 
the Tearfulness of that day when God shall call him to an ac« 
count." Again — " Such a slavery, for example, as Onesimus 
sustained to Philemon, a state of christian servitude, a state 
in which the master and the slave were required to conduct 
themselves as brethren and heirs of the common faith and 
salvation, Paul certainly did not forbid, when he restored 
this fugitive slave to his master. So far from justifying him 
in absconding, he required him to go back, at the same time 
furnishing him with a letter of introduction to his master, in- 
treating him to overlook his fault, and regard him as a peni- 
tent and faithful servant, and brother beloved." Again — 
" Nothing is more plain to my mind, than that the word of 
God recognizes the relation between master and slave as one 
of the established institutions of the age ; and that while it 
addresses slaves as christian men, and christian men as 
slave-holders, it so modifies the whole system of slavery, 
as to give a death-blow to all its abuses, and teaches such 
a spirit, that in the same proportion in which its prin- 
ciples and spirit are imbibed, the yoke of bondage will melt 
away, all its abuses cease, and every form of human op- 
pression will be unknown." Obliga. of ff'orld, &c. pages 
237, 239. 

The venerable Dr. Chalmers, of Scodand, who is a most 
earnest anti-slavery man, says — "But again, not only is 
there a wrong principle involved in the demand which these 
Abolitionists now make on the Free Church of Scotland : 
it is in itself a wrong procedure for hastening forward that 
object, for the accomplishment of which we are alike desi- 
rous with themselves ; or, in other words, it is not only 
wrong in principle, but hurtful in efTect. Should we con- 
cede to their demands, then, speaking in the terms of our 
opinion, we incur the discredit (and in proportion to that dis- 
credit we damage our usefulness as a church) of having giv- 
en in — and at the bidding of another party — to a factitious 
and new principle, which not only wants, bid ivhich con- 
travenes, the authority of Scripture and apostolic example, 
and, indeed, has only been heard of in Christ endoin within 
these few years, as if gotten up for an occasion, instead 
of being drawn from the repositories of that truth which 
is immutable and eternal — even the principle, that no 



34 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

SLAVE-HOLDER SHOULD BE ADMITTED TO A PARTICIPATION IN 

THE SACRAMENTS." [_See liis Letter, recently published in 
the Presiyteriun.~] 

Dr. ff aijland, President of Brown University, decided- 
ly Abolitioiiist in his principles, says, "The moral princi- 
ples of the Gospel are directly subversive of the principles 
of slavery ; but, on the other hand, the Gospel neither com- 
mands masters to manumit their slaves, 7ior authorizes 
slaves to free themselves from their masters ; and, also, it 
goes further, and prescribes the duties suited to both parties 
in their present condition." Moral Philos. p. 212. If, 
then, the Gospel nowhere commands masters to manumit 
their slaves, but prescribes the respective duties of master 
and slave, what authority has the church, acting under its 
guidance, to go beyond its requirements ? Observe the fact, 
Wayland admits, that the Gospel does address both masters 
and slaves, and, of course, tliat both were in the church — 
the maslers not being required, as a condition of member- 
ship, to liberate their slaves. 

Jiev. Br. Tyler, Professor in the East Winsor Theological 
Seminary, Connecticut — a Congregationalistof eminent abil- 
ities, said, in a speech at the late meeting of the Association, 
"Tlie simple question before us, is this; Is slave-holding 
a sin, calling for the discipline of the church ? (And mark 
the fact—Mr. Thomas, the Abolitionist states tliis as pre- 
cisely the great question now agitated,) ^f^nd this is an- 
srvered by ike example of the apostles. They lived and 
labored in the midst of it, and did not pronounce it a sin; 
and we may not, we cannot do it.'''' Again, " We are all 
agreed that there are great evils growing out of the system of 
slavery ; and he was opposed to any resolution that implies 
an opinion that the General Assembly [of the Presbyterian 
Church] has approved those evils. It has not. It expressly 
condemns them." Again, " He then referred to the course 
of Abolitionists. They denounce us as joro-slavery because 
we will not shut our pulpits against Southern ministers, and 
our churches against Southern members. But the Bible 
will not justify them in the ground they take. The Great 
Head of the Church communed with such men as many 
of the Southern christians are, and I will not refuse to do 
it. He then shewed up Mr. Perkins' misquotation of the 
text of Scripture, and asked if that passage (I Cor. vii. 21,) 
would justify a slave in killing his master, or justify Mr. 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 35 

Perkins in aiding him to escape. He would like to preach 
from that text to the slaves of the South, especially if he 
were a Colonization agent ; and he would say to them, If 
you can be made free by going to Liberia — " use it rather" 
— go. Much as he abhorred slavery, he would not go fur- 
ther than the Bible would allow him, in condemning it, and 
he did not wish to be called jaro-slavery, for giving full ex- 
pression to his views." 

Dr. Tyler, it will be observed, takes precisely the ground 
taken by our General Assembly, and for which it has been 
so grossly abused by Abolitionists, viz : that slave-holding 
is not a sin in itself, calling for the discipline of the church 
— that Christ and his apostles did hold christian commun- 
ion with slave-holders — that the Bible will not permit us 
to make slave-holding a bar to christian-fellowship. And 
he had the candor, of which the Abolitionists have proved 
themselves so destitute, to say, that our Assembly did not 
approve of any of the evils of slavery, but explicitly con- 
demned them. Moreover, he clearly intimates that he is a 
friend of the colonization cause. 

And whilst on this subject, I must quote from one or two 
other speeches in the Association. Rev. Dr. W. W. An- 
drews said — " The principle of the General Assembly's 
resolutions was incotrovertible. Slavery did exist in the 
times of the Savior and his apostles, and they did not 
condemn it. No hint is given us, that they regarded eman- 
cipation as a duty which was due to Christ and his service. 
Now Mr. Perkins has not met this argument, and he. can- 
not. And if the apostles did not say that slavery is a sin, 
we have no right to say it. Nor did he like the idea of re- 
buking a sister church with whom we are in friendly cor- 
respondence, in such terms." Again — " Rev. Mr. Andrews 
expressed the thought, that the Association is unanimous 
in the opinion that slavery is not sinful in itself; and if 
a resolution were drawn, expressly stating this fact, and con- 
demning the incidental evils, it would probably harmonize all 
views." " Rev. Mr. Ely contrasted Paul's treatment of Phil- 
emon with the conduct of modern Abolitionists. These, he 
said, pervert the whole cause of the Gospel, putting liberty 
before the kingdom of God ; seeking, not the conversion and 
salvation, but the liberty of the slave. If these brethren had 
a little of the spirit of the Gospel, they would be far more 
useful in the removal of the monstrous evil of slavery," 



36 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

In the proceedings of the Association on this subject, I' 
observe with particular interest the following facts, viz : 1. 
Leading men in that body contended for the precise doc- 
trine of the Report adopted by our General Assembly ; 2. 
The Abolitionist resolutions offered by Mr. Perkins, were 
laid on the table by an almost unanimous vote ; and those 
offered by Mr. Button, and which were drawn up by Dr. 
Bacon, shared the same fate ; 3. Dr. Tyler, after having de- 
clared himself decidedly opposed to Abolitionism, opposed 
to excluding Southern ministers from his pulpit, and South- 
ern christians from the Lord's table — after having declared 
himself favorable to colonization, — after having defended 
the doctrine of our Assembly — was appointed chairman of 
the committee to report on the subject. 4. That commit- 
tee made a report, in about Jive miymtes, (a much shorter 
time than the committee of our Assembly were employed 
in preparing theirs,) which was almost unanimously adopted, 
simply referring to their past action on the subject. What 
that action was precisely, I know not ; but I am perfectly 
certain, that Dr. Tyler did not agree, after having condemn- 
ed the doctrine of the Abolitionists, to refer to any past ac- 
tion of that character, as the present opinion of the Associ- 
ation. Doubtless that Association is decidedly anti-slave- 
ry in its views ; and doubtless it is, as a body, opposed 
to modern Abolitionism. See New York Observer of 
June 2Sfh. 

I state these things with the greater pleasure, because 
Professor Stowe has informed his brethren in New Eng- 
land, tliat the action of our Assembly was intended " for 
the entire casting out of the New England spirit from the 
pale of Old School Presbyterianism." I presume, tliere 
was in the Connecticut Association some of the New Eng- 
land spirit. Dr. Tyler perhaps might claim to have some- 
what of that spirit. And possibly Rev. Mr. Humphry, of 
Louisville, son of Dr. Humphry, might claim to have some 
remains of it. He was a delegate to that Association ; 
and he " read the recent action of the Assembly, and by ex- 
plaining the constitution of that church, showed, it was not 
competent for the Assembly to legislate on the subject of 
slavery. His speech was very lucid and impressive, and 
was listened to with fixed attention." N'. Fork Observer. 

I have quoted these opinions of eminently wise and good 
men for two purposes : 1st. To show how ignorant or how 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 37 

dishonest our Abolitionists are, when they attempt to throw 
odium upon our Assembly, by representing it as having as- 
sumed new ground — taught a new doctrine — in denying that 
slave-holding is in itself a sin calling for the discipline of 
the church. So far from it, such is the doctrine taught by 
the wisest and best men — men strongly anti-slavery in their 
sentiments — from the days of the apostles to the present 
time. Dr. Chalmers, who may claim to have read as much, 
perhaps, as the editor of the Watchman of the Valley! 
asserts that the doctrine of the Abolitionists was never heard 
of in the church of Christ till within a few years. 2nd. I 
have referred to these opinions to show how such men in- 
terpret the language of the apostles on the subject of sla- 
very. Perhaps the authority of such names will weigh as 
much as the bold assertions of Abolitionists, who have lit- 
tle reputation for learning, 

The fact, I think, is now proved to the satisfaction of every 
candid hearer, that the apostles of Christ did receive slave- 
holders into the Church, and did not require them to manu- 
mit their slaves. Consequently, one of two conclusions fol- 
lows, viz: 1. That the apostles did receive into the church, 
as christian brethren, men living in the constant and willful 
commission of heinous and scandalous sin — men-stealers 
and robbers ; or, 2. That the doctrine of Abolitionists is 
false. I cheerfully leave each of the audience to decide 
which is true. And now I ask, by what authority do they 
exclude from the church such characters as were received 
by the apostles of Christ? Are they authorized to make 
new terms of communion ? 

But we are told, that although the Gospel nowhere com- 
mands masters to manumit their slaves, the principles of the 
Gospel forbid slave-holding. To this I answer : — 

1. Did the apostles receive slave-holders into the church 
in violation of the principles of the Gospel ivhich they 
'preached? Will the Abolitionists lay against them this se- 
rious charge? If they did act in violation of their own 
principles, what confidence can we place in them even as 
good men ? Abolitionists, I know, tell us, they did not di- 
rectly and openly condemn slavery, through apprehension 
of the excitement and persecution such a course would 
produce. Are we then to believe that the apostles, so bold 
and fearless in reproving every other sin, in the face of the 
most furious persecution, shrunk from openly opposing this, 

4 



88 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

which, if Abolitionism be true, was about the greatest of 
all ? Could Paul call God to witness that he had not shun- 
ned to " declare the whole council of God," when in fact 
he had failed to declare that council on one of the most im- 
portant subjects connected with the purity of the church 
and the salvation of men ? He who brings against the 
apostles such a charge, does infinitely more for infidelity, 
than he does against slavery. 

2. But what right have Abolitionists to give to the prin- 
ciples inculcated by the apostles an interpretation and an 
application which they did not give ? Are they wiser than 
the apostles ? Or do they claim to be more faithful ? The 
conduct of the apostles is the best exposition of the princi- 
ples of the Gospel which they preached, so far at least as 
the government of the church is concerned. AVhcn men so 
interpret those principles, as that they require a course to be 
pursued, widely different from that pursued by them, it is 
certain that their interpretation is false, or the apostles were 
unfaithful ministers of Christ. 

But the Abolitionists tell us, they will produce a direct 
prohibition of slave-holding, so soon as we produce an ex- 
press declaration of Scripture against polygamy, horse-ra- 
cing, gambling, dancing, theatre-going, the Grecian and 
Roman games, &c. This is a miserably shallow evasion. 
Did the apostles direct men how to treat tlieir several wivefs ? 
Did they direct them how to conduct their horse-racing, 
their gambling, their theatres, &c. Did they admit to mem- 
bership in the church persons engaged in those vices ? If 
they had treated them as they treated slavery, I would main- 
tain, that we have no right, if we are guided by the Bible, 
to denounce them as necessarily sinful, or to exclude from 
the church persons participating in them. But the apostles 
did address masters and slaves, enjoining upon them their 
respective duties. They did receive into the church slave- 
holdei-s without requiring them to manumit their slaves. 
The cases are not at all analagous, as every candid mind at 
once perceives. 

But let us now consider the golden rule, which is suppo- 
sed to prove slave-holding in itself sinful. " Therefore all 
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do 
ye even the same to them : for this is the law and the 
prophets," Math. vii. 12. Does this rule forbid slave- 
holding under all circumstances ? I answer, no : — 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 39 

1. Because if it does, then God gave express permis- 
sion to the Jews to violate it — to commit sin. This no one 
will maintain. But it is a fact, as already proved, that they 
were permitted to purchase and hold slaves. 

2. If this rule proves slave-holding in itself sinful, then 
the apostles received persons into the church, who were 
notoriously acting in gross violation of it, and yet did not re- 
prove them, nor require them to abandon their sin. This 
no believer in the Scriptures, will admit. Then it is clear, 
that under the Old Dispensation, and in the days of the 
apostles, circumstances did exist, which made the holding 
of slaves not inconsistent with this rule ; and if such cir- 
cumstances did exist, then slave-holding is not in itself sin- 
ful ; and circumstances of a similar character may again exist. 

3. But what is the meaning of this rule ? Evidently it 
requires us to treat others as we would reasonably expect 
and desire them to treat us, if we were in their situation. 
And the spirit of the Gospel certainly does require us to 
do all we can, consistently with other paramount duties, to 
ameliorate the condition of all who are, to any extent, in a 
suffering condition. For example, it is our duty to feed the 
hungry and clothe the naked; but it is notour duty to starve 
our own children, or suffer them to go unclad, in order to 
feed and clothe others. If I were traveling through an un- 
inhabited wilderness, and were to find a man who had been 
wounded by robbers, it would be my duty, if possible, to 
take him up and convey him to some friendly habitation; 
but it would not be my duly to leave my litde children in 
the road in order to assist the stranger. The ancestors of 
the present slave population were wickedly torn from their 
native land, and brought to our shores. The English gov- 
ernment forced slavery upon the colonies. The constitu- 
tions and laws of the United States and of the different 
states were not made exclusively nor chiefly by christians, 
certainly not by Presbyterians. Slavery was unwisely and 
not without sin, perpetuated and extended. , Christians, 
now living in the slave-holding states, have not reduced free 
men to a state of servitude ; they found the slaves in their 
present condition, and the system of slavery established and 
upheld by the la^vs of the several states. The question is 
— what is their duty to the slaves, whom they find in their 
present condition ? That they are bound to ameliorate 
their condition as fast and as far as they can, consistently 



40 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, ' 

with other paramount duties, I admit and maintain ; but 
how far they can go, under existing circumstances, in secu- 
ring to them freedom, is an important and difficult question. 
Whether, if it were possible, (which it is not,) for the chris- 
tians in the skive-holding states to have all the slaves at once 
manumitted amongst them, their condition would be improv- 
ed or made worse, is at least a debatable question. The 
General Assembly of 1818, to whose action on this sub- 
ject Abolitionists so constantly refer, evidently thought some 
preparation necessary before a general emancipation would 
prove a blessing to the colored population. That body said : 
"As our country has inflicted a most grievous injury on the 
unhappy Africans, by bringing them into slavery, we can- 
not, indeed, urge that we should add a second injury to the 
first, by emancipating them in such manner as that they 
will be likely to destroy themselves or others." Digest, 
j:)age 344. 

Do you say, let all christians seek, by all peaceable and 
suitable means, such a change in the constitution and laws, 
as will result in the gradual emancipation of the slaves ? 
Agreed; but such is not the doctrine of the Abolitionists, 
They say, slave-holding is in itself a heinous and scanda- 
lous sin, and must be immediately abandoned. The ques- 
tion is — what is the duty of christians toward the slaves, 
so long as the civil government continues the system ? 
Does the golden rule forbid the christians of slave-holding 
states to be owners of slaves, however kindly they may 
treat them, however faithfully they may cause them to be 
instructed in religious truth ] I will present a few cases, 
such as frequently occur,, and leave every reasonable man 
to decide what would be the operatijon of the golden rule, as 
applied to them. 

A slave who has an ungotlly master, who has determined 
to sell him (or being about to remove, to carry him) far 
away from his wife and children, comes to a christian man, 
and begs him with tears to purchase him, that he may re- 
main with them. He appeals in the strongest manner to 
his feelings. He tells him, he will esteem it the greatest 
possible favor, if he will purchase him, keep him with his 
family, and allow him to serve him. Now suppose this 
christian man desires most sincerely to act according to the 
golden rule; what ought he to do? Do you say, let him 
buy him, and set him free ? But he has not five or six hun- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 41 

dred dollars to give as a present to this slave. He has ma- 
ny other duties to discharge, still more binding upon him. 
Do you say, let him buy him and hold him until he by his 
labor pays for himself? Very well; but how long will it 
require for him to do this ? It depends upon a great variety 
of circumstances, such as, the situation of the purchaser, 
whether he can afford thus to advance money for labor, 
whether he can make the labor profitable, what kind of 
labor the slave can perform, his continued health, &c. 
&c. In the mean time the purchaser has no security for 
his money, should the slave sicken and die. How long, 
then, ought he to hold the slave ? He did not de.sire to 
purchase him. He has done so in kindness to him, put- 
ting himself, it may be, to great trouble to raise the money. 
Will you make the church sessions committees to go and 
make all the necessary calculations, and decide when all 
such slaves have paid for themselves and ought to be free ? 
In the nature of the case, it must be left to the conscience 
of the purchaser to do what is right ; and the church can 
do no more than Paul did — say to the master, give your ser- 
vant "that which is just and equal." 

But the question recurs — did that christian man violate 
the golden rule, when he purchased the slave at his own 
importunate request ? He would have been glad to make 
liim a free man. He cannot do this ; but he can place him 
in a far better condition than he is now in. He can treat 
him kindly, and prevent his being torn from his family. 
He has not reduced him to a state of servitude ; but has im- 
proved his condition. Put yourself in the condition of that 
slave, and say, what you would desire a christian man to do 
for you. I would esteem saoh a man my best earthly triend 
and benefactor. The truth is, in such cases, the golden 
rule makes the christian the owner of a slave. I envy not 
the feelings of the man who can condemn such an indi- 
vidual. 

Ltt me state another case of frequent occurrence. An 
individual falls heir to a dozen, or twenty, or fifty slaves. 
Some of them are old, and require to be taken care of. Oth- 
ers are women with a number of small children. Suppose 
he desires not to be the owner of slaves ; will the Aboli- 
tionists tell us, what he ought to do with them I Do tiiey 
say, let hiin set them all free ? But what is to become of 
the old servants ? Would it be kindness or cruelty to liber-- 

4* 



42 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

ate them, and send them out to take care of themselves ? 
And then what is to become of the women and children? 
The husbands of those women are held in bondage by other 
men; and no one would feed, clothe, and take care of them 
and their children for their labor. Would it be kindness to 
send them to seek a home and support for themselves ? 

But suppose he should determine to manumit them all ; 
the law of Kentucky, for example, forbids him to do so, 
without giving bond and security for their support, that they 
shall not become a public expense. The law passed in 
1842, is as follows: "That the several County Courts of 
this Commonwealth, before granting certificates of freedom 
to any slave or slaves, emancipated according to the exist- 
ing laws of this Commonwealth, shall demand bond and 
suliicient security, to provide that said slave or slaves shall 
not become chargeable to any county in this Common- 
wealth," Is it the duty of a man or womsji to give bond 
and security for the support of a dozen, or twenty, or fifty 
slaves, of different ages, — slaves whom he has not reduced 
to a state of servitude, whom he did not desire to possess? 
How many of our zealous Abolitionists could be induced to 
do it? 

But, perhaps, as the case not unfrequently is, the man 
who inherits the slaves, has very little property besides. 
Even if he were disposed to give bond and security for the 
support of his slaves ; who, knowing his condition, would 
become his security ? Does the golden rule require him 
to solicit his friends to become his securities. How ma- 
ny of our Abolitionists would underwrite for such a man ? 

But in some of the states the law forbids men to manu- 
mit their slaves, unless they will remo^'e them from the 
state. Do you say, let them remove them to Ohio ? There 
are two most serious difhculties in the way : 1st. A number 
of them have husbands or wives who belong to other men ; 
and they are not willing, and it would not be right, to be 
separated from them. 2nd. The law of Ohio requires every 
free person of color, coming to reside in the state, to give 
two free-holders in the county where he expects to reside, 
as securities for his good conduct and his support ; and this 
he must do within twenty days after coming into the coun- 
ty. Would it be easy to find such securities for a number 
of slaves brought to Ohio to be set free ? 

The truth is, there are insuperable difficulties in the way 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 43 

of many who might be disposed to mamimit their slaves. 
They cannot "do it. Certainly they cannot, without disre- 
garding- other paramount duties. Some years since, whilst 
the subject of slavery was under discussion in the Synod of 
Kentucky, and when some w^ere urging the duty of imme- 
diate emancipation, an elder rose in the Synod, an eminently 
pious man — and stated that lie had inherited a large num- 
ber, perhaps near a hundred slaves, of the different ages 
and conditions already mentioned. He said, he had no 
desire to own them, but wished to do for them the best 
that under the circumstances he could do ; and called upon 
the brethren earnestly to tell him what to do with them. 
As to paying them wages, he said, tliey ivere eating him up 
— they were, taken all together, a serious expense. And 
now I ask the Abolitionists totell, what ought he to have done? 
The truth is, neither the precepts nor the principles of 
the Gospel require persons, without regard to circumstances, 
to liberate their slaves ; and it is not only the height of fol- 
ly, but the most flagrant injustice, to denounce all slave- 
holders indiscriminately as tyrants, robbers, oppressors, and 
the like. Even Dr. Wayla-nd, though he asserts that the 
principles of the Gospel forbid slavery, and though he ur- 
ges the duty of immediate emancipation, is obliged to ad- 
mit that there may be circumstances in- which it would not 
be proper innnediately to liberate slaves. His language is 
as follows : " But it may be said, immediate abolition would 
be the greatest possible injury to the slaves themselves. 
They are not competent to self-government. This is a 
question of fact, which it is not within the province of 
philosophy to decide. It very likely may be so. So far 
as I know, the facts are not sufficiently known to w^arrant a 
full opinion on the subject. We will, therefore, suppose it 
to be the case, and ask, what is the duty of masters under 
these circumstances? 1. The situation of the slaves, in 
w^hich this obstacle to their emancipation consists, is not by 
their own act, but by the act of their masters ; and, there- 
fore, the musters are bound to remove it.'" This, by the 
way, is not strictly true. The masters of those now in 
slavery are not, at least many of them, guilty of the charge 
here made. They did not bring those people into slavery. 
I know, there is a sense in which we may be responsible, 
to a certain extent, for the wrong acts of our ancestors ; but 
T know, too, that we are not responsible for their evil or un- 



44 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

wise acts, as for our own. One generation may create diffi- 
culties which it will require the efforts of several succeed- 
ing generations to remove. But let us read a litte further. 

The Doctor says — "But it may be said, this cannot be 
done, unless the slave is held in bondage until tlie object be 
accomplished. This is also a question of fact, on which I 
will not pretend to decide. But suppose it to be so, the 
question returns, what then is the duty of the master ? I 
answer, supposing such to be the fact, it may be the duty 
of the master to hold the slave ; not, however, on the ground 
of right over Jiim, but of oh ligation to him, and of obliga- 
tion to hhn for the purpose of accomplishirig a particular 
and specified good/' AJoral Philosophy, pages 216, 217. 
Circumstances, tlie Doctor admits, may exist, which will not 
only justify the master in holding the slave, for a time, but 
make it iiis duty to do so, and, of course, a sin to do other- 
wise. Whether such circumstances do exist in our country 
he says, " I do not feel competent to decide." Would that 
Abolitionists generally had a little of the modesty manifes- 
ted by this wise and good man. 

Wayland, though quite zealous in his Abolition views, ad- 
mits everything for which we contend. He admits, that 
the masters and servants addressed by Paul in Eph. vi. 5 — , 
1 Tim. vi. 1, &c., were slave-holders and slaves, and, of 
course, that the former were received into the apostolic 
churches. And speaking of the paragraph in which he at- 
tempts to reconcile this admission with his Abolition notions, 
he says, in a note in the 5lh edition, page 216, — " I have re* 
tained the above paragraph, tiiough I confess that the re- 
marks of Professor Taylor, of the Union Theological Semi- 
nary of Virginia, have led me seriously to doubt whether 
the distinction to which it alludes [viz : that slaves are nev- 
er required to obey masters, because it is right, but because 
the cultivation of meekness and forbearance under injury, 
will be well-pleasing to God,] is sustained by the New Tes- 
tament." He admits, that the Gospel does not command 
masters to manumit their slaves, nor does it authorize slaves 
to free themselves from their masters, page 212. He ad- 
mits, that there may be circumstances which justify, and 
even require masters to hold their slaves for a time at least. 
These admissions, which his good sense, and his know- 
ledge of the Scriptures constrained him to make, are fatal ta 
modern Abolitionism.^ 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 45 

We come, then, clearly to the conclusion, that the doctrine 
of Abolitionists is not sustained, either by the precepts or 
by the principles of the Gospel. It is directly in the face 
of both. Consequently, Abolitionists are condemning those 
whom God has not condemned, and attempting to exclude 
from the church multitudes of his faithful children ; and are 
causing divisions in the church of Christ by making new 
terms of communion. This is fearful work. Well may 
they tremble in view of their false doctrine and their reck- 
less course. 

I rejoice, and thank God, that in this day of agitation, 
wild-fire and fanaticism, the General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian Church, regardless of the reproaches of her enemies, 
has taken her stand on the doctrine of God's Word, and re- 
fused to agitate and divide her ranks by making new terms of 
communion. Let Abolitionists slander her by pronouncing 
her doctrine iwo-slavery. She will still move on, proclaim- 
ing to master and slave the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ; 
and just as did his apostles, she will aid in removing the 
evils of slavery, and (as far as, acting within her proper 
sphere, she may be able) slavery itself. 

On this point I shall have something to say in my second 
Lecture. 



SECOND LECTURE. 

In my first lecture, I was very particular to state the pre- 
cise points in regard to which we differ from the Abolition- 
ists. The question is not whether it is right to force a free 
man into slavery ; nor whether slavery is an evil, the removal 
of which should be sought in a proper way ; nor whether 
the particular laws by which, in the several states, it is reg- 
ulated, are just and righteous ; nor whether masters may 
regard their slaves, not as sentient beings, but as things ; 
but simply whether slave-holding is, under all circumstances, 
a sin, calling for the discipline of the church. I was par- 
ticular in stating, that I have not a word to say in favor of 
slavery, as a desirable institution, or an institution which 
ought to be perpetuated; that I am, and ever have been, de- 
cidedly opposed to it; and am prepared, at all times, to aid 
in its removal from our country, as rapidly as it can be re- 



46 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

moved peaceably, on scriptural principles, and with safety 
to the parties involved in it. In other words, I am prepar- 
ed to do all that the Scriptures autliorize, in order to its ul- 
timate removal. But with the venerable Dr. Tyler, I say, 
"Mucli as I abhor slavery, I will not go farther than the 
Bible will allow me, in condemning it." 

Yet, in the Morning Herald^ of this city, the public are 
informed that I delivered a lecture in defence of slavery, or 
in opposition to "the advocates of human liberty." There 
is not an individual who heard the lecture, who does not know 
the charge to be false. The editor, however, (who tells us 
lie was not present,) is but carrying out the policy of his 
party. Every man who refuses to adopt their unscriptural 
and fanatical opinions, and their revolutionary measures, is, 
by these pretended Iriends of humanity, denounced as an 
advocate of slavery. Such men as Dr. Tyler, of (Connec- 
ticut, Drs. Chalmers and Cunningham, of Scotland, and 
even the New England clergy generally, fall under these 
denunciations. If slander and misrepresentation could abol- 
ish slavery, doubtless they would soon accomplish the work. 
And by what right do these gentlemen claim to' be, par ex- 
cellence, " the advocates of human liberty ?" Gregory XVI. 
claims to be the head of the Church, and with quite as much 
truth. It is not uncommon for men in our world to lay ex- 
clusive claim to virtues, in proportion as they are destitute 
of them. 

I desire now to say something concerning the duty of the 
church, with regard to slavery. Before doing so, how^ever, 
it may be well to notice some of the charges recently made 
against our General Assembly, not heretofore adverted to. 

1. The General Assembly decided, that slave-holding is 
not in itself a sin, to be visited with the discipline of the 
church. This doctrine has been pronounced by the very 
sage editor of the TVatchman of the Valley, and otliers of 
the same party, new, and almost unheard of. " The Old 
School General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States," says he, "for the year 1845, stands sin- 
gle and alone in pronouncing American slavery a justifiable, 
a righteous, an apostolically authorized 'relation!'" In or- 
der to make the charge with a good grace, the editor found 
it necessary most grossly to misrepresent the action of the 
Assembly. Every man of common sense, who reads the 
Report adopted by that body, does know, that they did not 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 47 

pronounce American slavery a justifiable, a righteous, an 
apostolically authorized relation. One of the saddest evi- 
dences of the unchristian spirit pervading the Abolition 
ranks, is the astonishing disregard of truth, even in men 
professing to be ministers of the Gospel. It might be ad- 
mitted, that American slavery is, in its character, most in- 
iquitous — that every state where it exists, ought immedi- 
ately to abolish it — I say, this might be admitted ; and yet 
it might be true, that individual christians, involved in the 
evil unavoidably, are not sinning, though they sustain the 
relation of masters to slaves. " Distinction," says the ven- 
erable Dr. Chalmers, "ought to be made between tlie char- 
acter of a system, and the character of the persons whom 
circumstances have implicated therewith." The Assembly 
decided nothing concerning the system of Ainerican sla- 
very. The question answered by the Assembly is as fol- 
lows: "Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, 
M'ithout regard to circumstances, is a sin, the renunciation 
of which should be made a condition of membership in 
the church of Christ?" This question they answered in 
the negative — that the mere fact of slave-holding is not a 
sin which should exclude from the church. Is the doctrine 
new, as the editor of the TVafchman pretends ? On the 
contrary. Dr. Chalmers, certainly as extensively read as the 
editor, declares the opposite doctrine — the doctrine of the 
Abolitionists — to be " a factitious and new principle, which 
not only wants, but which contravenes, the authority of 
Scripture and of apostolic example ; and, indeed, has only 
been heard of in Christendom within these few years, as if 
gotten np for an occasion, instead of being drawn from the 
repository of that truth which is immutable and eternal." 
The doctrine of the Report, as I have proved, is that of al- 
most every respectable commentator and critic, however de- 
cidedly anti-slavery in their views and feelings. 

But did the Assembly teach a doctrine different from that 
of previous Assemblies ? This charge has been made; but 
it is untrue, as any one can satisfy himself, by examining 
the Assembly's Digest. No General Assembly of our 
church ever took the ground, that slave-holding is in itself a 
sin to be visited by the discipline of the church. When 
the Presbyterian church in the United States was organized, 
slavery existed in all the states in which it had churches 
planted ; and who ever heard of a man being excluded from 



48 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

the church, or even censured, simply because he was a 
slave-holder ? Can one instance of the kind, sanctioned by 
any General Assembly, be produced? The Synod of New 
York and Philadelphia, in 1787, had the following action 
on the subject of slavery : 

" The Synod, taking into consideration the overture con- 
cerning slavery transmitted by the committee of overtures, 
came to the following judgment: The Synod of New York 
and Philadelphia do highly approve of the general princi- 
ples in favor of universal liberty that prevail in America, 
and the interest which many of the states have taken in 
promoting the abolition of slavery. Yet, inasmuch as men 
introduced from a servile state to a participation of all the 
privileges of civil society, without a proper education, and 
without previous habits of industry, may be, in many re- 
spects, dangerous to the community; therefore, they ear- 
nestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their 
communion, to give those persons who are at present held 
in servitude such good education as to prepare them for the 
better enjoyment of freedom; and they, moreover, recom- 
mend that masters, wherever they find servants disposed to 
make a just improvement of the privilege, would give them 
a peculium, or grant them sufficient time and sufficient 
means of procuring their own liberty at a moderate rate ; 
that thereby they may be brought into society with those 
habits of industry that may render them useful citizens : 
and, finally, they recommend it to all their people to use 
the most prudent measures, consistent with the interests 
and the state of civil society in the countries where they 
live, to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in 
America." 

Now mark the fact: the Synod did not command or en- 
join any thing upon their members concerning slavery, as 
if they regarded the relation between master and slave as 
in itself sinful ; they recommefid. — And what did they re- 
commend ? Immediate emancipation ? No — on the con- 
trary, the}" express the opinion, that " men introduced from 
a servile state to a participation of all the privileges of civil 
society, without a proper education, and without previous 
habits of industry, may be, in many respects, dangerous to 
the community;" and therefore, they recommend to their 
members to give their slaves such education as would pre- 
pare them for freedom — and " to use the most prudent mea- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY* 4d 

siires, consistent with the interests and the state of civil so- 
ciety in the countries where they live, to procure eventually 
the final abolition of slavery in America." Is this an Abo- 
litionist document ? Does it propose to exclude all slave- 
holders from the church ? Does it even recommend imme- 
diate emancipation? Is it not precisely in accordance with 
the doctrine of the Report adopted by our Assembly ? 

In 1795, the following overture was presented to the Gen- 
eral Assembly : 

"A serious and conscientious person, a member of a 
Presbyterian congregation, who views the slavery of the 
negroes as a moral evil, highly offensive to God, and inju- 
rious to the interests of the Gospel, lives under the ministry 
of a person, and amongst a society of people, who concur 
with him in sentiment on the subject upon general princi- 
ples ; yet, for particular reasons, hold slaves, and tolerate 
the practice in others : ought the former of these persons, 
under the impressions and circumstances above described, 
to hold christian communion with the latter?" 

To which they gave the following" answer : 

"Whereupon, after due deliberation, it was Resolved, 
That as the same difference of opinion with respect to sla- 
very takes place in sundry other parts of the Presbyterian 
church, notwithstanding which they live in charity and 
peace, according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles ; 
it is hereby recommended to all conscientious persons, and 
especially to those whom it immediately respects, to do the 
same." 

Here we find the Assembly, so far from making the hold- 
ing of slaves a bar to christian communion — a sin which 
should be visited by the discipline of the church — recom- 
mending all persons, however opposed to slavery, to live in 
harmony, in charity and peace, with their brethren who 
were slave-holders, " according to the doctrine and prac- 
tice of the apostles^ The Assembly thus plainly declare, 
that the apostles taught that slave-holding is not a sin, which 
should exclude a person from the church, and that they 
practiced accordingly, admitting slave-holders to christian 
fellowship. 

In 1815, the General Assembly "urged the Presbyteries 
under their care, to adopt such measures as will secure, at 
least to the rising generation of slaves, within the bounds 
of the church, a religious education ; that they may be pre- 

5 



50 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

pared for the exercise and enjoyment of liberty, when God, 
in his Providence, may open a door for their emancipa- 
tion.''^ They also re-affirmed the advice to all their mem- 
bers, to make no difficulty about holding christian fellow- 
ship with slave-holders. They further remarked as follows : 

" This is deemed a sufficient answer to the first petition ; 
and with regard to the second, the Assembly observe, that, 
although in some sections of our country, under certain cir- 
cumstances, the transfer of slaves may be unavoidable, yet 
they consider the buying and selling of slaves by way of 
traffic, and all undue severity in the management of them, 
as inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. And they re- 
commend it to the Presbyteries and Sessions under their 
care, to make use of all prudent measures to prevent such 
shameful and unrighteous conduct." 

Will any one pretend that this is an Abolition document ? 
Does it denounce slave-holding, as in itself a sin, and slave- 
holders as worthy of exclusion from the church ? Far from 
it. That body deplored the evils of slavery, but was far 
from adopting the doctrines of our modern Abolitionists. 

In 1818, the General Assembly adopted a paper, in which, 
after strongly expressing their views of the evil of slavery, 
they proceed to state what they conceive to be the duty of 
christians in regard to it. They say — " It is manifesdy the 
duty of all christians who enjoy the light of the present day, 
when the inconsistency of slavery, both with the dictates of 
humanity and religion, has been demonstrated, and is gene- 
rally seen and acknowledged, to use their honest, earnest, 
and unwearied endeavors, to correct the errors of former 
times, and as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our 
holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery 
throughout Christendom, and, if possible, throughout the 
world. 

" We rejoice that the church to which we belong, com- 
menced, as early as any other in this country, the good 
work of endeavoring to put an end to slavery ;* and that, in 
the same work, many of its members have ever since been, 
and now are, among the most active, vigorous, and efficient 
laborers. We do, indeed, tenderly sympathize with those 
portions of our church and our country, where the evil of 

* In a note, the Assembly republished the minute of the Synod of 
New York and Philadelphia, on this subject, which the reader may find 
in Sect 2, preceding. 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 51 

slavery has been entailed upon them ; where a great, and 
the most virtuous part of the community abhor slavery^ 
and wish its extermination as sincerely as any others; 
but where the number of slaves, their ignorance, and their 
vicious habits generally, render an immediate and universal 
emancipation inconsistent, alike with the safety and happi- 
ness of the master and the slave. With those who are thus 
circumstanced, we repeat that we tenderly sympathize. At 
the same time, we earnestly exhort them to continue, and, 
if possible, to increase their exertions to eftect a total abo- 
lition of slavery. We exhort them to suffer no greater de- 
lay to take place, in this most interesting concern, than a 
regard to the public welfare truly and indispensably de- 
mands. 

"As our country has inflicted a most grievous injury on 
the unhappy Africans, by bringing them into slavery, we 
cannot, indeed, urge that we should add a second injury 
to the first, by emancipating them in such manner as that 
they will be likely to destroy themselves or others. But 
we do think, that our country ought to be governed in this 
matter, by no other consideration than an honest and im- 
partial regard to the happiness of the injured party : unin- 
fluenced by the expense or inconvenience which such a re- 
gard may involve. We therefore warn all who belong to 
our denomination of christians, against unduly extending 
this plea of necessity ; against making it a cover for the love 
and practice of slavery, or a pretence for not using efforts 
that are lawful and practicable to extinguish the evil. 

'-'- Snd we, at the same time, exhort others to forbear 
harsh censures, and uncharitable reflections on their breth- 
ren, who unhappily live among slaves, whom they cannot 
immediately set free; but who, at the same time, are really 
using all their influence, and all their endeavors, to bring 
them into a state of freedom, as soon as a door for it can be 
safely opened." 

Well, did this Assembly, to whose action Abolitionists 
have so clamorously referred, teach, that the holding of 
slaves was, in itself, sinful, and that slave-holders ought to 
be excluded from the church? Did ihey enjoin, or even 
recommend, immediate and universal emancipation, on the 
part of christian slave-holders ? On the contrary, they say, 
" We do tenderly sympathize with those portions of our 
church and our country, where the evil of slavery has been 



52 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

entailed upon them ; where a great, and the most virtuous 
part of the community abhor slavery, and wish its exter- 
mination as sincerely as any others — but ivhere the number 
of slaves, their ignorance, and their vicious habits gene- 
rally, render an immediate and universal emancipation 
inconsistent, alike with the safety and happiness of the 
master and the slave.'^ Nay, so far from countenancing^ 
the doctrine of modern Abolitionism, that all slave-holders 
are guilty of heinous and scandalous sin, and ought to be 
disciplined by the church, the Assembly exhorted all per- 
sons " to forbear harsh censures, and uncharitable reflec- 
tions on their brethren, who unhappily live among slaves, 
whom they cannot iminediarely set free ; but who, at the 
same time, are really using all their influence, and all their 
endeavors, to bring them into a state of freedom, as soon 
as a door for it can be safely opened." In the same paper, 
the Assembly warmly recommend the American Coloniza- 
tion Society, an institution most cordially hated by Aboli- 
tionists, and strongly approved by the well-informed phi- 
lanthropist. How far was tills Assembly from teaching Ab- 
olitionism ! 

It is not true, then, that the late Assembly took any new 
ground on this subject. On the contrary, that body took 
its stand just where tlie Presbyterian church in the United 
States has ever stood, since its organization. 

I have already intimated, that the charge against our 
church, as '•'- the slave church of Jlm,erica^'' as " unconscien- 
tious," as conniving at the sin of slavery, or as upholding 
it, comes with a particularly ill gmce from those who have 
made it — I mean ihe New {School men. What ground does 
the New School church occupy, with reference to slavery? 
Have they marched up to the question, pronounced slave- 
holding a heinous and scandalous sin, and excluded slave- 
holding ministers and members from their communion? 
They have amongst them certainly enough of " the New 
England spirit," which. Prof. Stowe says, we are driving 
from our ranks. What, then, have they done ? 

In 1839, the first year of their separate existence, the 
New School Assembly referred the whole subject to their 
Synods and Presbyteries, to take such order upon it as they 
thought proper. This they did, knowing well that there 
were Synods and Presbyteries in slave-holding states, con- 
nected with them, which would not exclude slave-holders 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 53 

from tlieir communion, nor even rebuke them. In 1840, 
after a stormy debate, their Assembly indefinitely postponed 
the whole subject, requesting those bodies that had made 
slave-holding a bar to christian fellowship, to rescind their 
acts. This they did, too, when one of the most prominent 
ministers of that body stated, publicly, that he had recently 
sold a slave, and expected to get the money for it ! In 1843, 
the last time the Assembly met, after a boisterous discussion, 
in which they came near dividing, they adopted the follow- 
ing paper : 

" Rev. Dr. Dickinson moved the postponement of Dr. 
Hill's resolution, for the purpose of taking up the following 
substitute : 

Whereas, there is in this Assembly great diversity of 
opinion as to the proper and best mode of action on the sub- 
ject of slavery ; and 

Whereas, in such circumstances, any expression of sen- 
timent could carry with it but little weight, as it would be 
passed by a small majority, and must operate to produce 
alienation and division ; and 

Whereas, the Assembly of 1839, with great unanimity, 
referred this whole subject to the lower judicatories, to take 
such order as in their judgment might be adapted to remove 
the evil; 

Resolved, That the Assembly do not think it for the edi- 
fication of the church, for this body to take any action on 
the subject," 

Thus have the New School Assemblies, thrice in succes- 
sion, refused to take any definite action on this subject. 
Thus, to use the eloquent language of the editor of the 
W^atchman of the Valley, have they '-'-shut out the cry of 
the poor^^ — thus '^ settled the fate of groaning millions^'' 
— refusing to say one word, in order to relieve them ! 
Whereupon, Rev. Dr. Clelland, of Kentucky, from a slave- 
holding church, and Rev. Joseph C. Styles, an extensive 
slave-holder, took their seats as members of the New School 
Assembly ! ! ! 

Now, either the New School Assemblies of '39, '40, and 
'43, believed that slave-holding is a heinous and scandalous 
sin, which ought to exclude those living in it from the church 
of Christ; or they did not. If they did not, they of course 
held the precise doctrine advanced by our Assembly, which,, 
according to Prof. Stowe, made our church " the slave church 

5* 



64 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 

of America;" which, according to the Watchman of the 
Valley, ought to "expose its authors to the scorn and con- 
tempt of mankind;" and, therefore, the New School church 
is, equally with ours, and before it, " the slave church," and 
deserves " the scorn and contempt of mankind." If they 
did believe it, then they solemnly decided, that it Avas not 
expedient for them to exclude heinous and scandalous sin- 
ners from their communion, nor even to rebuke them ! Nay, 
they deliberately postponed the whole subject, when one of 
those sinners boldly declared his sin on the floor of the As- 
sembly ; and as deliberately received into their body, com- 
missioners from two slave-holding Presbyteries, (in addition 
to those previously connected with them,) at least one of 
whom, a minister, was notoriously a large slave-holder ! 
Yet ministers connected with such a body, are m©t ashamed 
to attempt to east great odium upon our church, because 
our Assembly would not make slave-holding a bar t» chris- 
tian fellowship !. Would it not be wise in them, first to cast 
the beam out of their own eye, that they might see clearly 
to remove the mote from the eye of their brethren ? 

Look at tlie attitude- of their cliurch in any light ; and it 
is hx worse than that of ours. If slave-holdiBg is a sio, 
which should exclude those guilty of it from the church ; 
and if the New School know it ; then are they exposed 
to the "many stripes" threatened against the servant, who 
knew his master's will, and did it not. If it is not, our 
church is on the true ground. We have, at least, the merit 
of having marched up to the question, and decided it on 
what we believe to be scriptural principles, not on the 
ground of expediency ! 

Again — the decision of '39, by which the New School 
referred the subject to the lower courts, has created a schism 
in that body — a schism allowed by the very reference. 
Some of the Presbyteries in the New School body, after 
that reference,, passed resolutions excluding slave-holders 
from their pulpits and communion. The New School As- 
sembly of '40 requested those bodies to rescind those res- 
olutions — thus, in fact, adopting the docti'ine of our As- 
semhly, that the holding of slaves is not a bar to christian 
fellowship. Those bodies have not thought proper to com- 
ply with this '■'' pro-slavery'''' request, (for such it is, accord- 
ing to our New Scliool Abolitionists) ; and, consequently,. 
ministers in good standing in that body, in Kentucky or Vir- 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 55 

giiiia, are excluded from the pulpits of their brethren in 
other states ; and members in good standing are excluded 
from the Lord's table. And recently, the Presbytery of 
Cincinnati (New School) refused to dismiss a licentiate ta 
join a Presbytery of the same church in a slave-holding 
state. Thus there is schism in the body ; and our New 
School brethren not only have the sin of slavery, if it is a 
sin, but the sin of schism also. 

I should not have said so much, if any thing, concerning 
the course of the New School, but for the unprovoked at- 
tacks made upon us from that quarter. 

The editor of the Watchman of the Valley contrasts the 
action of the late Detroit convention, with " the dark, un- 
righteous action of the recent Gener^d Assembly in tbis 
city." That convention, of course, we are to suppose, did 
march up, like men, to the question, and declared the hold- 
ing of slaves a heinous and scandalous sin, and all slave- 
holders worthy of excommunication. Let us look at the 
Report adopted by that body. It is as follows : 

" Whereas, The convention held at Cleveland, June 20, 
did, with great and most desirable unanimity, record their 
solemn and decided testimony against the system of Ameri- 
can slavery, as a great moral, personal, and political evil, 
threatening the best interests and hopes of our beloved 
country ; and declared it to be the duty of all men, in all 
suitable ways, to make known their hearty disapprobation 
of the system, especially by avoiding all such fellowship 
with those who uphold it, as might imply any connivance at 
its perpetuity and extension ; therefore. 

Resolved, That this convention (more numerously attend- 
ed, and covering a still wider field than the one here referred 
to) feel called upon, at its present session, deliberately to 
adopt and re-affirm this decided declaration of sentiment on 
this great subject; and, at the same, to express their un- 
feigned gratitude to God, that, in every way, by the advan- 
ces of his providence and the triumphs of his truth; by the 
more earnest counsels, the deeper-toned remonstrances, and 
the increasingly fervent desires and prayers of the wise and 
good of all lands, touching the evil in question, he is affording 
us clieering tokens that he is about to establish the princi- 
ples here recognized in all hearts, and to work a practical 
conformity thereto, in all benevolent associations and opera- 
tions throughout the universal christian church.. In the 



56 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

prospect of such a blessed consummation, this convention 
heartily rejoice, and for it, as in duty bound, they will un- 
ceasingly pray." 

Never was there a more complete evasion of the ques- 
tion, the great question, between us and the Abolitionists. 
The convention bear "their solemn and decided testimony," 
against what ? Against the holding of slaves by individuals ? 
No — but against " the system of American slavery.^'' And 

WHO HAS DEFENDED THE SYSTEM OF AMERICAN SLAVERY ? 

The question pressed on our Assembly by Abolitionists, was 
not whether the system of American slavery is right or 
wrong; but whether those professing christians holding 
slaves, should be excluded from the church — whether the 
mere fact of slave-holding is a heinous sin? This impor- 
tant question the convention took care to evade altogether. 

But what, according to this enlightened convention of 
New School Presbyterians and Congregationalists, is the 
duty of individual christians on this subject? Why, in all 
suitable ways to make knoM^n their hearty disapprobation 
of the system. What are "suitable ways" of doing this 
duty? Each, of course, is left to judge for himself. So 
we have alw^ays done, and have manifested our opposition to 
it as truly as the convention. But it is our duty to "avoid 
all such fellowship with those who uphold it (the system), 
as might imply any connivance at its perpetuity or exten- 
sion." Here some important questions arise, which the 
convention did not think proper to settle, viz : 1. Who are 
they that uphold the system of American slavery? Are 
all chargeable with upholding it, who do not believe every 
slave-holder guilty of heinous and scandalous sin ? who are 
not modern Abolitionists? Are those who are in favor of 
gradual emancipation, guilty of upholding the system ? Are 
the friends of colonization chargeable with this sin ? The 
convention has left this matter perfectly indefinite. 2. 
Again — we are told, that we ought not to hold ''■such fel- 
lowship with those who uphold it, as might imply any con- 
nivance at its perpetuity," &c. Now the question arises — 
what kind of fellowship would imply connivance at its per- 
petuity? Suppose Dr. Beecher, who was a member of 
this convention, should allow Rev. Mr. Leach, or Rev. Mr. 
Styles, of Virginia, (both slave-holders,) to preach in his 
church: would this imply connivance at the perpetuity of 
slavery ■? Or, if he were to commune in one of the New 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 57 

School slave-holding churches of Virginia or Kentucky, 
would lie thus connive at it? All indefinite again. 

3. We are not to hold such fellowship with the uphold- 
ers of this system, as might imply any connivance at its 
''perpetuity mid extension.''^ Observe, tliey do not say, 
we must sliow no connivance at its existence, but at its per- 
petuity and extension. 

Now, the simple truth is — this document was drawn with 
great care, so as to mean any thing or nothing, as each in- 
dividual pleases. Interpreted by an Abolitionist, it is a 
completely Abolition document; and yet three-fourths of 
the slave-holding christians in Kentucky and Virginia could 
readily adopt it. It has some appearance of being quite a 
bold testimony against slavery; and yet it is just no testi- 
mony at all, so far as individual slave-holders are concerned. 
For example, a man, or a convention of men, might bear 
solemn testimony against the system of land-holding in 
England, as unjust, without saying one word against the 
moral character of individual land-holders. The conven- 
tion, therefore, with a great show of moral courage, avoid- 
ed touching the only questions now agitating the churches 
and the people of this country, touching slavery ! 

I must not omit to notice another attempt made by the 
enemies of our church to cast odium upon our General As- 
sembly. That body has been charged with hurrying, with 
indecent haste, to dispose of the subject, and with prevent- 
ing discussion. The subject of slavery has been agitating 
the church and the country for years past. Is it to be sup- 
posed, that the members of the Assembly had not formed 
their opinion, as to the question, whether slave-holding is 
in itself sinful, or whether slavery is to be abolished by the 
wild and revolutionary measures of the Abolitionists ? If 
they had made up their minds on this subject, why should 
they spend time in discussing it ? Suppose the question, 
whether Christ is truly and properly divine, had been press- 
ed upon that body ; and suppose they had decided it with- 
out debate ; would not the Unitarians have had the same 
right to reproach them, that the Abolitionists have? 

But they ought to blush to make such a charge. For 
years past, they have been pressing the subject of slavery 
upon the attention of each succeeding Assembly ; and loud 
and long have been their complaints, that they would not 
discuss it. Special efforts were made to have it brought 



58 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

before the last Assembly ; their memorials were received, 
and referred to a committee. From that committee they, 
of course, expected a report ; and the report, they knew, 
would open the way for discussion — the very thing they 
had so long and so ardently desired. Well — the report was 
twice distinctly read in their hearing. The Abolitionists say, 
it is a pro-slavery document, of the very worst character. 
And yet there was not a man on the floor of the Assembly, 
who would venture to make a speech against it. They 
called for time — for two or three days, — to consider how 
they should oppose a pro-slavery report ! The report was 
read about an hour before the Assembly adjourned for the 
evening. If any one would have made a speech of an hour, 
the Abolitionists would liave had time enough before the 
Assembly met on the next day, to examine carefully the re- 
port. But let it be told, to the honor of Abolitionists, that 
after being clamorous for discussion for years, and after 
having made special preparations to meet the subject in the 
late Assembly, not an individual was prepared to speak 
against a report, declared to be outrageously pro-slavery ! 
And now, to conceal their own want of courage, they at- 
tempt to cast great odium on the Assembly, because they 
took the vote when no one wished to speak ! If I were 
an Abolitionist, I would blush for my cause ; and would be 
ashamed to attempt to cover the want of moral courage in 
the party by casting reproach upon the Assembly. 

The important question recurs — What is the duty of the 
church in relation to the subject of slavery ? How can we, 
as christians, most efl(ectually improve the condition of 
the slaves, and remove the evil of slavery from our country? 

Slavery will never be abolished, nor the condition of the 
slaves be improved by the Abolitionists. The tendency 
and the effect of their principles and their practice is not 
only to perpetuate slavery, but to aggravate all its evils. It 
must be obvious to the common sense of every man, that 
if slavery is ever to be abolished, it must be done with the 
consent of the people, and by the people of each of the 
slave-holding states. They who could contribute to this 
result, must convince them, that it is their duty, or their inter- 
est, or both, to abolish it. This Abolitionists will never do. 

1. In the first place, the doctrine of Abolitionists is di- 
rectly in the face of the obvious teaching of the Bible, as it 
has ever been understood by the wisest and best men. It 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 59 

is vain for them to assert, that the persons bought with the 
money of the Hebrews, who are declared to be their " pos- 
session," and the inheritance of their children, were not 
slaves. It is worse than vain for them to assert, that God 
gave express permission to them to form a relation in itself 
sinful. It is useless for them to tell slave-holders, that the 
masters and servants, addressed by the apostles, were em- 
ployers and hired servants, not slave-holders and slaves ; 
when every respectable commentator and critic asserts the 
opposite. And it is equally useless for them to say, that 
the apostles received into the church men guilty of heinous 
and scandalous sin, without requiring them immediately to 
abandon it. They have failed to convince the great body 
of wise and good men in the free states of the truth of their 
principles ; and they are now bitterly denouncing ministers 
of the Gospel, anti-slavery men, because they do not see with 
their eyes. Then how, in the name of reason, do they 
expect to convince the people in the slave-holding states ? 

2. The spirit of crimination, denunciation, and slander, 
which characterize tlie Abolitionists as a body, together with 
their incendiary and revolutionary conduct, necessarily irri- 
tating to the highest degree the people of slave-holding 
states, destroys every particle of influence which they 
might have had, and makes the very name of Abolitionists 
to be detested, as combining everything hateful in moral 
character. If slave-holders are living in error and sin, they 
are to be reformed by kind, clear and conclusive evidence 
drawn from God's Word. What is the course of Aboli- 
tionists ? They grossly slander slave-holders. Take the 
following from the Edinburg Witness^ as an example. 

" What shall we think of the state of society, where a 
minister of the Gospel, wath credit to himself, avails him- 
self of the Sabbath for inflicting special punishment, as is 
usual, that field-labor may not be interrupted, and being en- 
gaged in flogging a poor negro, when the hour of worship 
comes, leaves his victim fastened to the post, goes to the 
house of prayer, conducts the worship, dispenses the com- 
munion, comes back, and with unabated zeal goes on with his 
barbarous work." 

Never did the father of lies fabricate a grosser falsehood. 
What, let me ask any man of common sense, must be the 
effect of such outrageous falsehoods constantly published in 
Abolitionist papers ? 



60 LECTURES ON SI,AVERY. 

Whilst this subject was under diseussion in tlie Synod of 
Cincinnati, hist lull, a member made some statements con- 
cernino^ the Uiws of Louisiana, in consequence of wliich a 
lawyer from New Orleans — a member of the Episcopal 
church — handed me the following written statement: 

1. "The member stated that Louisiana had passed a 
law against keeping a Simdny Sc/tool [for slaves] — " live- 
hundred dollars tine for the first oflence" — and death for 
the second." This is absolutely untrue, in all its points. 

2. The member said that the man who was arrested 
about the time of Mr. Sehon's stay in the city of New 
Orleans, was apprehended for "circulating Bibles among 
slaves." This is absolutely untrue — he was arrested upon 
a charge of an attempted insurrection. It is no oflence in 
TiOuisiana to distribute Bibles to slaves — and all who know 
anything of her laws know this fact. 

3. The resolution now under action speaks of the separ- 
ation of t'amilies, etc., &:c. There is in Louisiana, an ex- 
press legal prohibition to this injustice — and probably in 
most of the slave states. 

4. As to illegal, cruel, or inhuman, treatment by the mas- 
ter to liis slave, you but inform the proper avithorities, and 
upon proof, the slave is sold into belter hands — the master 
paying all costs of sale an<l the costs of the prosecution. 
This I have known done repeatedly, during the fourteen 
years of my practice in that state. John P. McMillin." 

Doubtless the member of the Synod believed M'hat he 
stated to be true ; but this only shows how readily Aboli- 
tionists gi\e credence to false reports concerning slave-hold- 
ers, and on how slight grounds they give them to the public 
as undoubtedly true. The tendency of such tilings to 
exasperate slave-holders and to injure the slaves, is manifest. 

Do tiie Abolitionists go amongst slave-holders, and rea- 
son kindly witli them I Far from it. They remain in the 
free states, and denounce them in public meetings and in 
newspaper publications, as man-stealers, robbers, tyrants, 
&c., &c. Was ever a human being reformed in this way ? 
Suppose one of your neighbors living in the commission of 
some great sin ; would you expect to reform him by getting 
up a meeting and denouncing him in the bitterest lerms ? 
Did our Savior or his apostles attempt to reform men in 
this wav ? Did Paul get up a pul)lic meeting in Jerusalem, 
and make speeches and pass resolutions denouncing either 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 61 

the slavery or the superstition of the Pagans ? No — ^like a 
man and a christian, he went to Athens, and said to the peo- 
ple as he stood in the midst of Mar's Hill — " Ye men of 
Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too supersti- 
tious." Thus uniformly did the apostles of Christ. Do 
the Abolitionists expect to reform Kentuckians by holding 
their meetings in Cincinnati, and abusing them ? The 
Kentuckians are a magnanimous people ; and they despise 
the character of men, who will stand on this side of the 
Ohio river, and denounce and abuse them. 

But Abolitionists do not stop with slander and denuncior 
tion. They lay and execute plans for decoying slaves from 
their masters. Nay — they are not ashamed, at least some 
of the most prominent of them, to advise the slaves not 
only to leave their masters, but to steal whatever ma}'- be 
necessary, either in the slave-holding, or in the free states, 
for their escape. The following is the advice of the New 
York state Anti-slavery nominating convention to fugitive 
slaves. It is from the pen of Gerrit Smith, Esq, — " And 
when too, you -are escaping from the matchlessly horrible 
Bastile, take, all along your route, in the free as well as in 
sl-ave states, so far -as it is absolutely essential to your escape, 
the horse, the boat, the food, the clothing which you require; 
and feel no more compunction for the justifiable appro- 
priation, than does the drowning man for possessing him- 
self of the plank that floats in his way.'' 

When editors and ministers of the Gospel condemned 
this abominable advice, Smith came out in the following 
style : *' The address to slaves was scarcely from the press, 
before numbers of our religious teachers, some of them af- 
frighted simpletons, but doubtless far more of them wretch- 
ed knaves, took to preaching the claims of the eighth com- 
mandment." This address, he says, " has developed the 
devilism in the clerical toads, and other toads among us." 

Is it by such men, that slave-holders are to be induced to 
liberate their slaves ? But why do I reason on the subject? 
Our civil union is now denounced by many Abolitionists. 
They evidently do not expect slavery to be abolished, as it 
has been in the older free states. They look, at least many 
of them, to the time when the slaves will rise, murder their 
masters, and thus secure liberty ! The notorious Leavit 
talks of reasoning with slave-holders with " cold steel." 

Can any man wonder, in view of the course pursued by 
6 



62 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

Abolitionists, that they are detested in the slave-holding 
states, or that mobs have been excited against them? / 
hcive ever condemned all violence against them ; and I 
condemn it still. But who that knows anything of human 
nature, can wonder at the results ? 

3. The necessary tendency of Abolitionism is to take 
from both masters and slaves the only influence by which 
the condition of the latter can ever be improved, — I mean the 
Gospel of Christ. The Abolitionists will not go to the 
slave-holding states and preach the Gospel. Mucli as they 
have said about the darkness in which their population are 
enveloped, it is truly remarkable that none of them have 
felt called providentially to go and enlighten them. Their 
zeal has all been expended in the free states. Yet they 
have not failed to exhort ministers of the Gospel in those 
states to preach Abolitionism. They are not ashamed to 
exhort others to do what they have not the courage to do, 
and to denounce them for neglecting to do it. Thus they 
prove themselves destitute of the courage to oppose slavery 
as the aposdes of Christ opposed whatever they regarded 
as sin, and of the magnanimity which would prevent them 
from condemning others for not doing what they themselves 
refuse to do. 

Suppose, then, all the ministers of the Gospel in the 
slave-holding states, could at once be converted to Abolition- 
ism ; what would be the consequence ? With one accord 
they would hasten to the free states ; and every church 
would be closed. If any man becomes an Abolitionist in 
Kentucky, for example, he soon crosses the Ohio river. The 
good people of Kentucky very seldom hear an Abolitionist 
preach, and never heard one preach Abolitionism. 

And if the preaching of the Gospel should cease in ■the 
slave-holding stales, when would the evils of slavery be re- 
moved, or slavery abolished ? No other influence most as- 
suredly will ever improve the condition of the slave. Who 
does not see, that by withdrawing the Gospel from those 
states, and by irritating them to the highest degree by abuse, 
by decoying their slaves, and the like, the condition of the 
slaves would be made unspeakably worse, and the evils of 
slavery perpetuated ? Rev. Dr. Spring, of New York, 
says — " The late Dr. Griffin, one of the most devoted 
friends of the colored race in this land, said to me, a few 
months before his death — ' / do not see that the efforts in 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 63 

favor of immediate emancipation have effected anything 
but to rivet the chains of the poor slave.^^^ In this opinion 
Dr. Spring, a decidedly anti-slavery man, fully concurs. 

Nor are these gentlemen singular in their opinion ; many 
other eminendy wise and good men, no less opposed to 
slavery than Abolitionists themselves, are of the same opin- 
ion. The venerable Dr. Chalmers says — " There are vari- 
ous methods, various lines of procedure and policy, in which 
philanthropists and patriots might enter, and join their for- 
ces for the abolition of slavery. The most unjustifiable, 
and, let me add, the most unwise and least effectual of these, 
were to pronounce a wholesale anathema, by which to un- 
christianize, or pass a general sentence of excommunication 
on slave-holders." Again, "But I must repeat my convic- 
tion, that slavery will not be at all shaken — it will be 
strengthened, and stand its ground — if assailed through the 
medium of that most questionable and ambiguous principle 
which the Abolitionists are now laboring to force upon our 
acceptance, even that slave-holding is, in itself, a ground of 
exclusion from tlie christian sacraments — instead of being 
assailed through the medium of such other and obvious 
principles as come home to the hearts and the consciences 
of all men." Similar views have been expressed by Rev. 
Dr. Cunningham of Scotland, Yet all these eminent men 
were and are opposed to slavery. 

The Abolitionists m' ill never abolish slavery, nor improve 
the condition of the slaves ; but if their principles could pre- 
vail to any very great extent, they would not only abolish 
the peace, harmony, and union of the churches of Christ, 
but the christian ministry, the sabbath (which, by Gerrit 
Smith and others, has been devoted to political harangues,) 
and our civil union. It would involve our happy country 
in a most dreadful civil war. 

This, though enough, is not all. The tendency of Abo- 
litionism is to take the Gospel from the slave population. 
As already remarked, the Abolitionists will not go and 
preach to the slaves. They, therefore, must have the Gos- 
pel, if they have it at all, from the very men who are denoun- 
ced by these fanatics as their greatest enemies ! So deeply 
are the Abolitionists concerned about the temporal freedom 
of the slaves, that they leave their immortal souls in bond- 
age to sin and Satan, and exposed to eternal ruin ! They 
would take from them that Gospel which alone can liberate 



64 LECTURES ON SLAVERY, 

them and make them happy even in bondage, and which 
will make them now and forever the freemen of Christ. 

I rejoice to know, that the Gospel is preached both to 
masters and slaves, and with increasing zeal to the latter, 
and that thousands of them are disciples of Jesus Christ, 
and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. It is preach- 
ed by those ministers whom Abolitionists love to denounce 
as the bitterest enemies of the slaves. They say to them 
with Paul — "Art thou called being a servant? caa'e not for 
it ; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather," Cor. 
vii. 21. For whom, I ask, will those slaves thank God m 
the day of judgment ; — for the Abolitionist, who stood at 
a distance and abused their masters, or for those minis- 
ters who, far more concerned for their souls' salvation than 
for their present freedom, preached to them the " unsearcha- 
ble riches of Christ ?" In life, in death, and in eternity, they 
will thank God for the ministry of those faithful men who 
have taught them the way of life eternal. Abolitionism, 
whilst it will never secure to them liberty of body, will 
leave their souls in bondage to the devil. 

Again, the question recurs — How is the condition of the 
slaves to be improved? and how is slavery to be abolished? 
I answer, in the language of the Assembly's Report — " The 
apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate the condition of 
slaves, not by denouncing and excommunicating their mas- 
ters, but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious 
doctrines of the Gospel, and enjoining upon each the dis- 
charge of theu' relative duties. Thus only can the church 
of Christ, as such^ nov/ improve the condition of the slaves 
in our counlry."^ 

When masters become true christians, they are, of course^ 
inclined to do for the their slaves the best that, under exist- 
ing circumstances, they can. The feeling of responsibility^ 
and the benevolence which are characteristic of the real 
christian, will induce the master to regard and treat his slaves 
as his fellow-beings, rational, accountable, immortal. Thus 
the evils of slavery will be removed ; and as Rev. Albert 
Barnes says — "The master would become the protector, 
the teacher, the guide, the friend ; the servant would become 
the faithful helper — rendering service to one whom he lov- 
ed, and to whom he felt himself bound by the obligations 
of gratitude and affection." Comment, on Eph, vi. Such 
a state of mind would incline the master to liberate his slaves 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 65 

SO soon as he could do so consistently. " There can be 
no doubt," says Barnes, " that not a few who were convert- 
ed to the christian faith were held in involuntary servitude ; 
and it is as clear that the apostles did not design to make 
a violent disruption ol these bonds, or to lead the slaves to 
rise and murder their masters, * * * *. These principles 
(of the Gospel) actually effected the freedom of slaves in the 
Roman empire in a few cenwries after Christianity was in- 
troduced, and they are destined to eflect it yet all over the 
world." Comment, on Col. ch. iv. 

Scott, the Commentator, says — '.'This (1 Tim. vi. 1 — ) 
shows, that christian masters were not required to set their 
slaves at liberty, though they were instructed to behave to- 
ward them in such a manner, as would greatly lessen and 
nearly anniliilate the evils of slavery — the principles of both, 
the law and the Gospel, when carried to their consequences, 
will infallibly abolish slavery." The apostles, according to 
Scott, left the abolition of slavery to the silent operation of 
the principles of the Gospel. 

Dr. Spring says — " The Bible is no agitator. It gradual- 
ly meliorates what it cannot suddenly remove. Instead of 
carrying fire and sword throughout the world, without the 
least prospect of advantage, it aims at making men holy, and 
fitting them for heaven. It changes human governments 
only as it changes human character ; and thus produces all 
those alterations which commend themselves to a mind en- 
lightened by the truth and Spirit of God. It aims at trans- 
forming the world; but it is by transforming the dispositions 
and hearts of men, and diffusing throughout all the social in- 
stitutions, the supreme love of God, and the impartial love 
of man." Obligations of World to Bib., pages 239, 240, 

Dr. Wayland, though very much of an Abolitionist, is 
constrained to admit, that the great Author of the B.ble did 
not directly prohibit slavery, but inculcated those great prin- 
ciples which would ultim.ately remove it. In giving reasons 
why it was not directly prohibited, he remarks as follows : 

" The reason may be, that slavery is a social evil ; and that, 
in order to eradicate it, a change must be effected in the so- 
ciety in which it exists, and that this change would be bet- 
ter effected by the inculcation of the principles themselves 
which are opposed to slavery, than by the inculcation of a 
direct precept. Probably all social evils are thus most sue-'- 
cessfully remedied. 

a* 



66 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

The Gospel was designed, not for one race, or for one 
time, but for all races, and for all times. It looked not at 
the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its 
universal abolition. Hence, the important object of its Au- 
thor was, to gain for it a lodgment in every part of the known 
world ; so that, by its universal diffusion among all classes 
of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and sub- 
due the evil passions of men ; and thus, without violence, 
work a revolutionary reform in the whole mass of mankind. 
In this manner alone could its object, a universal moral revo- 
lution, have been accomplished. For, if it had forbidden the 
evil, instead of subverting the principle ; if it had proclaim- 
ed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist 
the oppression of their masters; it would instantly have ar- 
rayed the two parties in deadly hostility, throughout the 
civilized world : its announcement would have been the 
signal of servile war ; and the very name o? the christian 
religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of 
universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, 
that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason 
to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less 
does it afford ground for belief, that Jesus Christ intended 
to authorize if.^' 

In view of these sentiments, I should like to inquire, why 
the Abolitionists have thought proper to pursue a course of 
conduct so widely different from that adopted by the inspi-^ 
red apostles, in reference to slavery ? Do they claim su- 
perior wisdom ? The apostles did not denounce slave-hold- 
ers; the Abolitionists do. The apostles did not require the 
immediate emancipation of slaves ; the Abolitionists do. 
The apostles did not refuse fellowship with slave-holders ; the 
Abolitionists do. In a word, the course of the Abolitionists 
is diametrically opposed to that of the apostles? Whom 
shall wefolloiv ? 

Ho^\^ then, has slavery been abolished, wherever this 
has been done ? Not by conventions of men and women, 
of all sorts and of all creeds, from the infidel to the ortho- 
dox christian, assembled to denounce and excommunicate 
slave-holders. Indeed, it would be truly strange, if the 
church of Christ should be reduced to the humiliating ne- 
cessity of seeking moral light from such a motley group. 

In the Roman empire, slavery, we are told, was abolished 
ultimately by the general prevalence of the Gospel. In 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 67 

the West India Islands, it was abolished by the influence of 
such men as Wilberfbrce, Clarkson, and others, wdio were 
far from being Abolitionists in the modern sense. The 
parliament had authority to do this thing ; and they paid the 
slave-holders i3 20,000,000, as a compensation for the loss 
of their slaves. But our Abolitionists ofler no money, un- 
less it is to run fugitive slaves to Canada! Wilberforce rea- 
soned with the men vvlio had authority to abolish it. The 
Abolitionists pursue a very different course. They make 
their appeals to those who have neither the power nor the 
right to liberate the slaves. 

How was slavery abolished in the older free states ? Once 
it existed in New England, in New York, New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania. Was it abolished in these states by Aboli- 
tionist societies, by denouncing slave-holders from the pul- 
pit and the press, as man-stealcES, robbers, tyrants, heinous 
and scandalous sinners, and by excluding them from the 
church of Christ ? It was not. Modern Abolitionisnv had 
not then been born. Churches were not then rent asunder. 
Tlie passions of men were not excited by bitter denuncia- 
tion, and by decoying their servants and running them to 
Canada. No mobs disturbed the peace by their violence. 
The Gospel was preached. as it is now preached in the slave- 
holding states. Slave-holders stood, as in the apostolic 
churches, in good and regular standing. Public sentiment 
was gradually changed by the pure and benevolent princi- 
ples of the Gospel of Christ; until, by a change in the laws 
of each state, the system of slav-^ery was gradually abolished. 

The slave laws of New York were more severe, and the 
treatment of slaves far more cruel, than now in the Southern 
states. "In New York," says Dr. Spring, '• for a long se- 
ries of years, the Bible ap^^ears to have exerted little influ- 
ence in mitigating the condition of the slave. The master 
and mistress were, authorized to punish their slaves at dis- 
cretion, not extending to life or limb ; and each town was 
authorized to appoint a common whipper for their slaves, 
to whom a salary was to be allowed. In the year 1740, it 
was observed by the legislature, that all due encouragement 
ought to be given to the direct importation of slaves, and all 
smuggling of slaves condemned., as an eminent discour- 
agement of the fair trader! The criminal code against 
them was fearfully severe. When capitally impeached, 
they were often, tried out of the ordinary course of jus- 



68 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

tice, and denied the rights and privileges of free subjects 
under like accusations. They were convicted on suspi- 
cion, and on testimony that would have been rejected by 
any court where a white man was the accused person. In 
1741, on the discovery of wiiat was called ''the negro 
plot," thirteen were adjudged to the stake in our own city 
(New York). The last execution of this kind was witness- 
ed at Poughkeepsie, shordy before the commencement of 
the revolutionary war," 

How was the condition of the skives ameliorated, and 
slavery finally abolished in New York? Let Dr. Spring 
tell. " But this severity could not long be sustained in a 
christian land. In process of time, the penal code against 
slaves was meliorated ; facilities were multiplied for the 
manumission of slaves ; the importation of slaves was at 
length prohibited. Laws were enacted also, to teach the 
slaves to read, and a system commenced for the gradual ab- 
olition of slavery. Till at length, by the act of 3ist of 
March, 1817, it was declared tliat every subject of the state, 
from and after the 4th day of July, 1827, shall be free." 

By the operation of the same principles, slavery was 
abolished in Massacfhusetts, by their constitution ; it was 
abolished in Connecticut, by statutes passed in 1783, and 
1797, "which have, in their gentle and gradual operation, 
totally extinguished slavery in that state." In the same 
wa.j, it was abolished in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. — 
See Ohiiga. of JFor/d, to Bib. by Dr. Spring. 

It is, then, a fact, that slavery has been abolished in the 
older free states, not by the doctrines or the practices of the 
Abolitionists, but 1w the simple preaching of die Gospel, and 
tlie gradual moulding of public sen-iment under its benign 
influence. It was abolished through the influence of tliose 
who pursued the course now pursued by the great body of 
ministers of the Gospel in the slave-holding states — by the 
influence of just such men as now fall under the bitterest 
denunciations of Abolitionists, who claim to be the exclusive 
friends of the slave, and of humanity. 

The Abolitionists have, for years, agitated the public 
mind in our country; and what have they accomplished ? 
Where did their principles ever abolish slavery? Nowhere 
on the face of the earth. They have, indeed, had their in- 
fluence. They have excited \v,oht and violence by their 
grossly unchristian conduct. They have divided chu relies* 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 6y 

aiid caused bitter animosities amongst brethren. They have 
caused more severe laws to be enacted against the slaves, 
in some of the states. They have broken up Sabbath 
schools, where hundreds and thousands of them were 
taught to read God's Word. In Kentucky, there were a 
number of such schools, every one of which, I believe, was 
abandoned, because of the excitement produced by the fa- 
natical course of Abolitionists. In Kentucky, moreover, 
public sentiment was rapidly ripening for the adoption of a 
plan for gradual emancipation. In 1833, the following law 
was passed : 

That each and every person or persons, who shall here- 
after import into the state any slave or slaves, or who shall 
sell or buy, or contract for the sale or purchase, for a longer 
term than 1 year, of the service of any such slave or slaves, 
knowing the same to have been imported as aforesaid, he, 
she, or they, so offending, shall forfeit and pay $600, for 
each slave so imported, sold, or bought, or whose service has 
been so contracted for, recoverable by indictment of a grand 
jury, or an action of debt, in the name of the commonwealth 
of Kentucky, in any circuit court of the county where the 
offender or offenders may be found. — Exception was made 
in favor of emigrants to the state. The following oath to be 
taken before a justice of the peace within 60 days after ar- 
rival in the state: "I, — , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that 
my removal to the state of Kentucky was with intention of be- 
coming a citizen thereof, and that I have brought with me no 
slave or slaves, with intention of selling them, so help me 
God." And persons must also, within 30 days after making 
such oath, have had the same recorded in the office of the 
clerk of the county court, of the county in which the oath 
or affirmation was taken. — Exception in favor of sojourners 
and heirs. 

The design of this law was to prevent an increase of the 
number of slaves, and thus prepare the way for the removal 
of the evil. And I rejoice that, notwithstanding the irrita- 
tion produced by Abolitionists, the legislature has steadily 
refused to repeal it. 

Yet the Abolitionists have succeeded in arresting the pro- 
gress of public sentiment, not only in Kentucky, but in oth- 
er states, in favor of gradual emancipation, in occasioning 
greater obstacles to be thrown in the way of those who 
would have liberated their slaves, in crippling the efforts of 



70 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

the friends of the colored man, to instruct him in tlie doc- 
trines of ciiris ianity. Still, liundreds, and perhaps thou- 
sands, have been liberated, under tlie influence of the Gos- 
pel, whose ministers are bitterly reproached by the Aboli- 
tionists ; and many are now not only free, but prosperous, 
in the land of their fithers. The colonization society has 
indeed encountered mighty obstacles. It has had to meet 
tiie bitter opposition of Abolitionists, the unparalleled em- 
barrassment in commercial aflairs, and the difficulties neces- 
sarily incident to the establishment of new colonies in a 
distant land. And yet how delightfully its course and its 
success appear, in contrast with the achievements of Aboli- 
tionism. Its colonies, though not large, are now flourish- 
ing. Schools and churches are established amongst them, 
and a happy moral and religious influence moulds the char- 
acter of the poj)ulation. Tiiousands and tens of thousands 
of the natives are brought under their influence. The slave- 
trade is suppressed, so far as their influence and power ex- 
tend. Those colonies are missionary stations, from which 
civilization and Christianity are destined to extend through 
that bejiighted region. 

Tills society has excited no mobs — divided no churches ; 
it has not denounced the church of Christ, nor his ministers ; 
it has not denounced, nor threatened, our civil union. The 
good it has done, has been accomplished in accordance with 
the great principles of philanthropy which characterize the 
Gospel. 

And what have Abolitionists done toward liberating slaves? 
They have run oft' a few to Canada. What has become of 
them, or what good they are doing, we are not informed. 
Only we know that, occasionally, one returns to his master, 
preferring slavery to the freedom his Abolitionist friends se- 
cured him. 

The course pursued by the aposfles of Christ, the histo- 
ry of the efibrts and the past success in removing the evils of 
slavery, prove, conclusively, that the only eftectual method 
of accomplishing this object, is to preach, both to master and 
slave, the Gospel of Christ, exhorting each to the faithful 
discharge of their mutual duties. This method has been 
repeatedly tried, with cheering success. In the slave-hold- 
ing states, it has gradually moulded public sentiment, im- 
proved the condition of slaves, liberated large numbers of 
them in a lawful way. Abolitionists have tried a diflTerent 



LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 71 

method. They have denounced slave-holders, published 
false or exaggerated stories concerning the sufferings of 
slaves, sought to exclude slave-holders from the church of 
Christ, denounced ministers of the Gospel who would not 
adopt their newly discovered doctrines, and fall in with their 
fanatical measures. The withering effects of tlieir course 
are now seen and felt. No sober-minded man, who will 
look at the past and the present, it seems to me, can hesi- 
tate in condemning it as evil, and only evil, continually. 

Some have thought, the General Assembly ought to have 
devised some plan of hastening the abolition of slavery. 
This subject has been long before the public; and it has 
occupied the anxious thoughts of the wisest men. But, to 
this day, I have seen no practicable plan suggested by which 
the church of Christ can improve the condition of slaves, 
except that adopted by the apostles, and recommended by 
the Assembly. If any one can devise a better plan, I shall 
be happy to sit at his feet and learn wisdom. So long as 
the system of slavery exists, christians will, to a consid- 
erable extent, be slave-holders. It can scarcely be other- 
wise. Christianity will, however, remove the evils of sla- 
very, just in proportion to its general prevalence in the 
slave-holding states ; and ultimately, I trust, it will remove 
slavery itself, as it has done in the older free states. 

Others have thought, the Assembly ought to have ex- 
pressed their earnest desire for the abolition of slavery, and 
to have exhorted christians, as far as possible, to labor for 
that object. I do not learn, that the apostles of Christ ever 
devised any plan for the abolition of slavery, which prevail- 
ed in their day ; or that they expressed any such desire, or 
gave any such exhortations. Doubtless they would have 
done so, if they had thought it proper and wise. Christians 
should be slow in censuring church courts for not doing what 
inspired men, under similar circumstances, did not do. Be- 
sides, it is vain to express such desires, and give such ex- 
hortations, unless we are prepared to devise something de- 
finite to be done. It is to be presumed, the brethren in the 
slave-holding states are doing all they consider practicable, 
under existing circumstances, to improve the condition of 
the slaves ; and, until the General Assembly is prepared to 
recommend some definite course, which is better, these ex- 
hortations would be unavailing. Indeed, those of us who 
have lived in those states, have had reason to know, since 



72 LECTURES ON SLAVERY. 

the Abolition fever has prevailed, that any decided action of 
the Assembly on the subject, tends only to cripple the efforts 
of those who are laboring to ameliorate the condition of the 
slaves. 

To those brethren who are anxious to sustain the good 
work of removing the evil of slavery, I would venture to 
suggest the propriety of increased efforts, to send into those 
states a larger number of wise, prudent, godly ministers, 
who will preach the Gospel both to master and slave, who 
will be far more concerned to save the souls of both, than 
to liberate the one. Such men will do much, under God, to 
remove the evils complained of, and still more to make the 
slaves Christ's free men-^the children of God, and the 
heirs of eternal life. 

The sum of the whole matter is this : There are many 
and great evils connected with slavery; but slave-holding is 
not, in itself, sinful. The proof that it is not, is found in 
the facts — that God gave express permission to the Jews, 
to buy and hold slaves ; and that the apostles of Christ 
received slave-holders into the church, as faithful brethren, 
and did not require them to manumit their slaves. And 
further, the principles of the Gospel, under certain circum- 
stances, make men owners of slaves ; because thereby tliey 
improve their condition, as far as other paramount duties 
permit. Finally, if slavery is ever to cease in America, it 
must be abolished by the people of the slave-holding states, 
or with their approbation ; and the necessary change in pub- 
lic sentiment must be wrought, as it has been elsewhere, by 
the influence of the Gospel of Christ ; not by Abolitionist 
societies; not by denouncing and excommunicating slave- 
holders, simply because they are such ; not by the mad and 
wicked attempt to destroy our civil union. May God, in 
his mercy, guide his church into all truth, and overrule for 
good the evil works of misguided and dishonest men. 



Books Published by J. A. James, Cincinnati. 

A. DEBiLTi: OI^" THE D O C T R I XO" E OF 

UNIVERSAL SALVATION ; 

Held in Cincinnati, Ohio, from March 24 to April 1, 1845, between 
Rev. E. M. PiNGREE, Pastor of the First UniversaHst Church, Louis- 
ville, Ky., and Rev. N. L. Kick, D. D., Pastor of the Central Presby- 
terian Church, Cincinnati, (3hio. Taken down by a Reporter, and Re- 
vised by tlie parties. 

Xlie Bicentenary, of the Assembly of Diamines at West- 
minster, held at Edinburgh, July 12 and 13, 1843: containing a full 
and authentic report of the Addresses and Conversations, with an In- 
troductory Sermon by Rev. Dr. Symington. Published under the 
sanction of the Assembly. With an Introduction to the American 
Edition by Rev. William \\'ilson, A. M. 

Tlie Pictorial BiMe.— Being the Old and New Testa- 
ments, according to the authorized version, with more than ONE 
THOUSAND ENGRAVINGS. With full Marginal References; the 
latest and most authentic Maps; an elegantly engraved Family Record; 
and the Ttjxt, from the Standard Edition of the American Bible Socie- 
ty. Imp. 8vo. 

]Vew Testament, on Large Type, with Polyglot notes in cer 
tre column, with or without Psahns of David in metre, — in press, an 
will be delivered early in the fall. 

Tlie Book of Psalms, ix Metre: translated and diligently 
compared with the Original Text, and Former Translations. More 
plain, smooth, and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore. Allow- 
ed by the authority ot the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, 
and appointed to be sung in Congregations and Families. With a 
General Index, containuig the first line of each verse, in Alphabetical 
order. Printed from th > Glasgow Edition. Approved by the Board of 
Publication of the Cahinistic Book Concern. 

DiCli'S liectwres. — Lectures on Theology: by the late 
Rev. John Dick, D. D. With a Biographical Introduction, by an 
American Editor. Imp. 8vo. 572 pages. 

M'Crie's IL.ives of tlie Scottish Reformers.— By 

the late Thomas M'Crie, D. D., containing the lives of Knox and 
Melville ; together with a memoir of William Veitch, written by him- 
self. Imperial 8vo,, 502 pages. 

Ovren on tlie Spirit and 130tli Psalm.— By Joa- 

Owen, D. D. Imp. 8vo. 522 pages. 

Erskiue^S Sermons.— The Sermons or the Rev. Ralph 
EttsKiNE, A. M. Imp. 8vo. 

JOSepllUS' IVorRs. — Complete in one vol., royal 8vo., 648 
pages, with Portrait and Engravings. 



Vr 



F^ - IJ^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 899 712 8 



